Skip to main content
Glama

move_ticket

Move a ticket to another column by target name or UUID, using version for conflict-free updates and optional position for ordering.

Instructions

Move a ticket to another column. Give either status (the column name) or status_uuid — with NEITHER this is a 400 ("body must NOT have fewer than 2 properties") and not a no-op, and with both it is a 400 saying to pick one. A column name is matched case-insensitively and trimmed, so "to do" finds "To Do", but a name no column has is a 400 naming it, and a status_uuid belonging to another board is refused too — get_board is where both come from. version must be the one get_ticket returned; a stale one is a 409 that carries the current version with it, so the retry does not need another read. The ticket is appended to the bottom of the column it arrives in unless you send a position; it does not keep the number it had in the column it left.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoTarget column name
versionYesThe `version` from the ticket as you last read it. Not a number you choose or increment: send back exactly what get_ticket gave you. If somebody else has written since, the call answers 409 rather than overwriting them — re-read with get_ticket and retry against the new version.
positionNoSort key within the column, not an index — smaller sorts higher. Read the neighbours' `position` off get_board and send a number between them; omit it to append to the bottom. Positions come back as decimal strings ('1000.000000') and are sent as numbers.
task_uuidYesThe ticket's uuid, from list_tickets, get_board or search
status_uuidNo
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it details 400 errors for neither/both parameters, invalid column names, and wrong board UUIDs; explains 409 stale version handling with the current version included; and describes the append-to-bottom position behavior. This is rich operational detail that goes far beyond basic expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then systematically covering parameters, error cases, and positioning behavior. While every sentence provides value, the paragraph is long and could be broken into bullet points for easier scanning; slight verbosity in error message quotes earns a 4 rather than 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (concurrency versioning, positional semantics, multiple error modes) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers inputs, side effects, and error handling thoroughly, but does not specify the nature of the success response (e.g., updated ticket or confirmation), which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds crucial semantics: the mutual exclusivity of status and status_uuid, case-insensitive and trimmed matching, and the version requirement from get_ticket. These details are not in the schema and are essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Move a ticket to another column,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from update_ticket (which likely modifies other fields). It further clarifies the domain by referencing get_board for column identifiers and get_ticket for versioning, solidifying its unique role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it explains the either/or requirement for status vs status_uuid, where to obtain these values (get_board), and how to handle versioning with get_ticket. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Developyn/laver-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server