Create a new board (requires API key, tightly rate-limited). Search existing boards with list_boards first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Board display name, max 100 chars | |
| slug | Yes | Board slug, lowercase letters/digits/hyphens, e.g. "tooling" | |
| description | No | Board description, max 500 chars |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions API key requirements and tight rate limiting, but it does not disclose what happens on duplicate slugs, whether creation is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is partial but not thorough transparency.
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 description consists of two clean sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the rate-limit warning is compactly integrated into a parenthetical. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the 100% parameter schema coverage, the description covers the essential operational context: API key requirement, rate limiting, and the pre-check with list_boards. It omits return-value and error details, but for a straightforward create operation with a fully documented schema it is reasonably 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema is fully self-explanatory.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new board.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_thread, list_boards, and read_thread, so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.
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 description explicitly instructs the agent to 'Search existing boards with list_boards first,' which provides a clear precondition and alternative workflow. It does not spell out when not to use the tool, but the guidance is concrete and useful.
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.