List columns on a Kaiten board in board order, with local pagination using limit and offset. Use it to browse a board's workflow columns before managing or moving cards.
List columns on a board in Kaiten order. Pagination is applied locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| board_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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that pagination is applied locally rather than server-side — but says nothing about ordering guarantees beyond "Kaiten order", failure modes, or result 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The purpose comes first and the pagination caveat second, which is exactly the right ordering.
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 the annotation set covers the safety profile. What remains is minor: no usage routing among siblings and no parameter-level detail, but for a simple read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It only hints at pagination (mapping loosely to limit/offset) and never clarifies what board_id refers to or how limit/offset interact.
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 specific verb and resource ("List columns on a board") and adds the meaningful scoping detail "in Kaiten order". It is clearly distinguishable from list_lanes/list_boards by the resource noun, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the correct tool for enumerating a board's columns rather than any of the other list_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.