Retrieve boards within a Kaiten space using space_id, with local pagination via limit and offset. Browse available boards before reading cards, columns or lanes.
List boards in a space. Pagination is applied locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| space_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| next_offset | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / offset / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / space_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The one genuinely additive sentence is "Pagination is applied locally," which warns that the server may fetch a full board list and slice it, implying cost and possible truncation. It does not explain what "locally" means for result completeness or ordering, so it adds value but not full behavioral context.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the pagination note. The terseness borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, which is the right failure mode but leaves the definition thin.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is legitimately omitted, and the read-only annotations cover the safety story. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition says nothing about how space_id is obtained or how local pagination affects results, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.
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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only hints at limit/offset via the word "pagination" and never explains that space_id must be a positive integer, what the local pagination means for offset semantics, or that limit caps at 100. An agent gets almost nothing beyond the schema's type constraints.
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 and resource ("List boards") plus a scope ("in a space"), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from kaiten_get_board or kaiten_list_spaces. It stops short of naming any sibling or clarifying the board-vs-column-vs-lane distinction, so a 4 rather than 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an agent must already know a space_id, presumably from kaiten_list_spaces), and no exclusions or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the phrase "in a space."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.