Retrieve a single card checklist and its items by card ID and checklist ID in Kaiten. Use it to inspect checklist details, track progress, or verify task completion.
Read a card checklist and all its items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card_id | Yes | ||
| checklist_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that all checklist items are returned, which is useful scope information, but it does not add richer behavioral context such as pagination, permissions, or output shape.
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 is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately and is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, the definition is only minimally complete for correctly invoking the tool with the required identifiers.
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 0%, and the description does not mention card_id or checklist_id at all. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation by clarifying what those identifiers refer to or require.
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 gives a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('card checklist'), and scope ('all its items'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling kaiten_list_checklists, which could also surface checklist-related data, so it falls short of a 5.
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 contains no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. It implies that this is the tool for reading a single checklist with its items, but provides no explicit context for choosing it over sibling list or get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.