Zeigt ein Board mit allen Spalten und deren Karten (id, titel, erledigt, farbe, faellig). Nutze das, um zu entscheiden, wohin eine Karte gehoert, bevor du move_card aufrufst.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Zeigt' (shows) implies a read-only operation, and it details the returned card fields, but it does not explicitly state non-mutation, error behavior, or permissions. This is adequate for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's function and output, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant information, clearly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the card fields returned and gives usage context. It does not detail column structure or error handling, but for the intended use (deciding card placement), it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, board_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on board_id, but the name is self-explanatory and the tool's purpose ('ein Board') implies its use. Given the simplicity, this does not significantly hinder understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows a board with all columns and their cards, listing specific card fields (id, titel, erledigt, farbe, faellig). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_boards or move_board by focusing on the board's internal structure and content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says to use this to decide where a card belongs before calling move_card, providing context and a related tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., list_boards for board summaries), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (board, column, card, tracker, field, entry) with no overlapping purposes. Even closely related operations like add_card vs add_entry operate on different entity types.
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_board, add_card, delete_entry, update_tracker). The mix of 'create' for top-level entities and 'add' for sub-entities is a minor deviation but still predictable.
24 tools is somewhat high but well-justified given the server covers two resource families (boards and trackers) with full lifecycle operations. Each tool has a clear role in the overall surface.
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD coverage for boards, columns, cards, trackers, and entries. The main gap is the lack of an update_field tool, but this can be worked around by deleting and recreating fields.