Kaiku

set_track

Declare a track on a project, or edit the one that already has this tag. The tag is the LABEL issues carry to join it ('cherry-orchard'), so it cannot contain a space — labels are stored space-separated. The name is what a reader sees ('The Cherry Orchard'); leave it out and the tag speaks for itself. Declaring a track writes nothing to any issue: the ones already carrying the label are in it at once. Needs permission to write in the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	Yes	The label that puts an issue in this track, e.g. 'cherry-orchard'. No spaces. An existing track with this tag is edited rather than duplicated; matched exactly, so 'Hamlet' and 'hamlet' are two tags, as they are two labels.
`icon`	No	One or two emoji shown BESIDE the name, never instead of it. Leave it out to keep what is there; send an empty string to take it off. Anything that is not an emoji is refused rather than ignored.
`name`	No	What a reader sees, e.g. 'The Cherry Orchard'. Leave it out to keep what is there; send an empty string to drop it and let the tag speak.
`newTag`	No	Rename the tag to this. The label on existing issues is NOT rewritten, so work in the old tag leaves the track — rename only when the issues are being relabelled too.
`archived`	No	true takes the track off the row above the board WITHOUT undeclaring it — a play that has been staged: its name, icon, place and tag are kept, its issues stay in it (they do not become 'outside every track'), and links to it keep working. false puts it back in the row. Leave it out to keep what is there. Prefer this to remove_track for a track that is finished.
`position`	No	Where it sits in the row above the board, counting from 1. Leave it out and a new track goes last, an existing one stays where it is.
`projectKey`	Yes	Project key, e.g. 'TH'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that declaring writes nothing to issues, that existing issues with the label are immediately in the track, that newTag does NOT rewrite labels on existing issues, that archived keeps issues in the track, and that non-emoji icons are refused. These are behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core action and tag/name distinction before diving into parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, though the length is substantial. It could arguably be tightened, but the density is justified given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core semantics, the edit-vs-create behavior, the archived state, the newTag caveat, the icon validation, and the permission requirement. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the tag/name distinction ('The tag is the LABEL issues carry to join it... The name is what a reader sees'), clarifies that leaving name out lets the tag speak, and explains the archived behavior in terms of 'a play that has been staged.' This elevates it above baseline.

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 specific verb ('Declare a track on a project, or edit the one that already has this tag') and clearly distinguishes the resource (a track identified by a tag). It differentiates from siblings like remove_track and list_tracks by explaining what declaring does and by explicitly preferring this tool over remove_track for finished tracks. The tag/name distinction is front-loaded and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Prefer this to remove_track for a track that is finished.' It also explains the semantics of editing vs creating based on tag existence, and clarifies that declaring writes nothing to issues. This is explicit routing guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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

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?