List boards in a Kaiten space by space ID, with limit and offset for local pagination. Use it to browse available boards before working with columns, lanes, or cards.
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.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'Pagination is applied locally,' which tells the agent limit/offset are applied client-side rather than server-side and therefore behave differently than expected for a remote list endpoint.
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 zero filler, and the core scope ('which boards') is front-loaded ahead of the pagination note. It is tight and readable; the brevity is a small liability only in the separate completeness dimension.
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 values need not be described. However, with zero schema descriptions on three parameters and no sibling routing, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent that has to supply space_id and reason about limit/offset.
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 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implicitly colors space_id ('in a space') and alludes to pagination without explaining limit/offset semantics, defaults, or ranges, leaving the parameter gaps largely unfilled.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List boards') and names the scope ('in a space'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like kaiten_get_board or kaiten_list_spaces, so it stops 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?
There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. The 'in a space' phrasing implies the space_id prerequisite, but the agent gets no help deciding between this and kaiten_list_spaces or kaiten_get_board.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.