Kaiku

set_project_field

Add a column to a project, or edit the one that already has this name. Keyed by name rather than by id: 'make sure there is a Segment field with these options' is the request, and a name is what you just read. A field's KIND cannot be changed once it exists. Project lead or admin only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`icon`	No	The glyph that mark wears, from the palette list_project_fields returns. Not for a country field: that one marks a card with the flag of the country the issue holds, so passing an icon is refused rather than ignored.
`kind`	No	What it holds: 'text', 'number', 'date' (a day), 'datetime' (a day and a time, written like 2026-10-01T19:30+03:00), 'user', 'select' (a list) or 'country' (a country, written as its name or its two-letter code and shown with a flag). Required when creating; ignored when the field already exists, since a kind cannot change.
`name`	Yes	Field name, e.g. 'Segment'. An existing field with this name is edited rather than duplicated.
`newName`	No	Rename the field to this. Leave out to keep the name.
`options`	No	For a list: its options, as 'AI:green, Skins:orange, GameCards' or a JSON array of {name, color}. A colour is optional and must be one of: orange, amber, red, pink, purple, blue, teal, green. Options left out are REMOVED — send the whole set.
`showIcon`	No	Mark a board card when this field has a value: true to switch the mark on, false off. Leave out to keep it as it is.
`issueType`	No	Keep the field for issues of one type only, by name — e.g. 'Показ' — or '' for every type. Leave out to keep it as it is.
`projectKey`	Yes	Project key, e.g. 'CRM'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / issueType

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Keep the field for issues of one type only, by name — e.g. 'Показ' — or '' for every type. Leave out to keep it as it is.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Previous value: -"What it holds: 'text', 'number', 'date', 'user', 'select' (a list) or 'country' (a country, written as its name or its two-letter code and shown with a flag). Required when creating; ignored when the field already exists, since a kind cannot change."New value: +"What it holds: 'text', 'number', 'date' (a day), 'datetime' (a day and a time, written like 2026-10-01T19:30+03:00), 'user', 'select' (a list) or 'country' (a country, written as its name or its two-letter code and shown with a flag). Required when creating; ignored when the field already exists, since a kind cannot change."

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses several critical behaviors: keying by name (idempotent upsert), kind immutability, options removal when omitted (with explicit warning to send the whole set), and refusal of icons for country fields. It does not mention return value or error conditions, but it covers the main operational pitfalls an agent would need to avoid. This is substantial transparency, though not exhaustive, so 4.

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 description is about four sentences, each adding meaningful information: purpose, keying mechanism, kind immutability, and permission. The most important info (what it does and how it keys) is front-loaded. There is no wasted fluff; the conversational tone ('make sure there is a Segment field') is efficient and illustrative. It is appropriately concise for the complexity, so 4.

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?

Given 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: permission level, keying behavior, kind immutability, and the options-removal pitfall. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but for a mutation tool with this schema richness, the description covers the critical usage points. An agent can call this tool correctly with the information provided, so it is complete enough for a 4.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter is already documented in detail. The description adds some context (e.g., keying by name reinforces the 'name' parameter, and the kind constraint is echoed), but it largely repeats what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies here; the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, which is appropriate.

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 states a clear action (add or edit a project field), the resource (project column), and the keying mechanism (by name rather than id). It distinguishes this from delete_project_field and list_project_fields by explicitly framing it as an upsert ('Add a column... or edit the one that already has this name'). This is specific, unambiguous, and immediately differentiates the tool from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a permission constraint ('Project lead or admin only') and a key behavioral limitation ('A field's KIND cannot be changed once it exists'), giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose framing ('make sure there is a Segment field with these options') implies the use case strongly. This is clear context without formal exclusions, so a 4 is warranted.

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

All Kaiku tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?