Lists all Scrum and Kanban boards in Jira, enabling you to view and select available boards for sprint planning and issue tracking.
List all Scrum and Kanban boards
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_boards"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('List all') and specifies board types, but it does not clarify data scope (e.g., archived boards), pagination, or response format. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.
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?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and object. Every word is informative, and no space is wasted.
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 zero-param list tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits details about the return value (fields, shape) or any access scope (e.g., 'all' might mean all accessible boards). Given no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally complete but not fully contextualized.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information needed. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('boards'), and further specifies it includes both Scrum and Kanban boards, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sprints or get_backlog.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.