Flow Boards MCP Server

list_flow_tickets

Retrieve all tickets in a flow by specifying the flow name or ID. This returns the complete list of tickets for review and management.

Instructions

List all tickets in a flow.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "flow": "<flow>"
    },
    "name": "list_flow_tickets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`flow`	Yes	Flow name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and scope, without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only status, return format, pagination, or any limitations. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but no explicit confirmation is given.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words or redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description adequately conveys purpose and parameter context. However, it lacks usage alternatives and return value details (no output schema), and there are no annotations to fill the gap. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the 'flow' parameter, which describes it as 'Flow name or ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the word 'flow' in the sentence, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all tickets in a flow' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (tickets in a flow), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tickets by scoping to a flow. It clearly states the tool's primary function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tickets or list_flow_moves. No exclusions or context is given to help the agent choose correctly.

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