Flow Boards MCP Server

list_ticket_moves

Retrieve the full movement history of a ticket, including every status change and action taken.

Instructions

Get the movement history for a ticket.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "list_ticket_moves"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Ticket ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get the movement history' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), requires special permissions, or what the output contains. There is no mention of pagination, ordering, or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This simple tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining the return value and any important context. It does not describe the structure of the movement history, differentiate from similar list tools, or mention any prerequisites. The description leaves too much unspecified for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Ticket ID'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond confirming the ticket context. Baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'movement history' for a ticket, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_ticket (current ticket details) and move_ticket (performs moves). Its purpose is immediately clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticket or list_flow_moves. The description does not mention any exclusions or preferences, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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