regards.design

Your boards

list_boards

Read-onlyIdempotent

The user's boards on regards.design, where they keep sections they liked: each board's id, name, how many sections it holds, whether it is shared by link, and its page (url). last is the board save_to_board uses when none is named; most and sectionsEach are how many boards the plan keeps (null: as many as the user likes) and how many sections each holds. Use it to find a board the user names ("my Pricing board") or to see what they have kept; read_board gives a board's sections.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`last`	Yes	The id of the board save_to_board uses when none is named; null before the first save.
`most`	Yes	How many boards the plan keeps; null: as many as the user likes.
`boards`	Yes	The user's boards, the last changed first.
`canShare`	Yes	Whether the plan shares boards by link.
`sectionsEach`	Yes	How many sections each board holds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the meaning of 'last' as the default target for save_to_board, and that 'most'/'sectionsEach' reflect plan limits with null meaning unlimited. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, which is the remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded with purpose and payload; usage guidance follows; the alternative is last. It is dense with parentheticals ('null: as many as the user likes') and could be split for readability, but essentially every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return shapes, yet it still explains the non-obvious fields ('last', 'most', 'sectionsEach'), which is a real gain for interpretation. Combined with usage guidance and the sibling handoff, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words explaining output field semantics, which is appropriate for a no-arg listing tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('The user's boards on regards.design') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, section count, share-by-link, url), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly differentiates itself from read_board, which returns a board's sections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states two concrete use cases – resolving a board the user names ('my Pricing board') and surveying what they have kept – and names the sibling to use instead when sections are wanted. The only thing missing is an explicit when-not-to-use clause, which is minor here.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All regards.design tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?