Lists memberships for a Kaiten card by card_id, returning member_id and user_id for each user. Use this to audit card access or identify assigned members.
List card memberships. Use the returned id as member_id and user_id to identify the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| card_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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the returned id is used as member_id/user_id, which is minor extra context; it says nothing about pagination or result volume.
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 the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence verges on restating return-value information that the output schema already provides, but it is brief enough not to cost much.
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 explained, and annotations cover safety. Still missing is any hint about pagination behavior and the meaning of the sole required parameter, which for a list endpoint is a meaningful gap.
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% across three parameters (card_id, limit, offset) and the description compensates for none of them. It never explains what card_id refers to or how limit/offset shape the result, so the pagination semantics remain entirely undocumented.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('List card memberships') that is readily distinguished from the sibling mutations add_card_member, update_card_member_role and remove_card_member. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast against any sibling.
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 prerequisites, and no alternatives offered. The second sentence describes what to do with the result rather than when to select this tool over others such as kaiten_get_card.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.