List boards or inspect one board to retrieve task revisions and source-labeled member observations for team coordination.
List boards or read one board, including task revisions and source-labeled member observations. No native agent discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope and a limitation, but does not disclose auth needs, pagination, or other behavioral details; no contradiction is present.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The final sentence is terse but not wasteful, and the overall size is appropriate for a simple read-only 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?
For a simple read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the high-level return content. It still leaves boardId semantics and sibling selection unclear, so it is only adequately complete.
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?
The sole parameter boardId has 0% schema description coverage. The description implies that omitting it lists boards and providing it reads one board, but never names boardId or explains its format, constraints, or expected value, so it only partially compensates.
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 or read one board, and names included data such as task revisions and member observations. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like team_panel or team_read_records, 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?
It implies that omitting boardId lists boards and providing it reads one board, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives among the many team_* siblings. The phrase 'No native agent discovery' is an exclusion but too cryptic to guide tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.