columns_setReplace one board's columns, in order, with 2 to 12 unique names. Tasks in a removed column move to the FIRST column. Blanks are dropped first, so a list normalising below two names is refused. Pro.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columns | Yes | The new column names in order, at most 12, e.g. ['inbox','next','doing','done'] | |
| project | Yes | Which board |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the critical side effect that tasks in a removed column move to the FIRST column. It also explains blank handling and the refusal condition after normalization, which are essential behavioral details for a column-replacement mutation.
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?
The definition is compact and front-loads the action, constraints, and side effect. The trailing 'Pro.' is unexplained and slightly cryptic, but the rest of the description contains no wasted wording.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main risk: what happens to tasks in removed columns. It is nearly complete, though it leaves the meaning of 'Pro' and any success confirmation behavior unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that names must be unique and that blanks are dropped before the two-name minimum check is applied.
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 states a specific verb and resource: replace one board's columns, in order. It also adds the key constraints of 2 to 12 unique names, making the operation immediately distinguishable from broader sibling tools such as board or task_update.
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?
The replacement context is clear, and the side effect on removed-column tasks helps an agent understand when this operation is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it clarify prerequisites beyond the ambiguous trailing 'Pro.'
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.