Flow Boards MCP Server

update_ticket

Update ticket information including name, description, and bin location to manage tasks effectively.

Instructions

Update ticket fields (name, description, bin, etc.).

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": "update_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Ticket ID
`name`	No
`binName`	No	Move to bin by name or ID
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 says 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose partial vs full update behavior, permission requirements, effects on existing fields, or the return value. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and touched fields, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's mutating nature, 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits response behavior, required id, and update semantics, making it barely minimal for safe invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%; the description lists 'name, description, bin' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. binName already has a schema description, and name/description are self-explanatory. The vague 'etc.' hints at other fields but doesn't clarify them, and the required 'id' is omitted from the description.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool updates ticket fields (name, description, bin), using the specific verb 'Update' and resource 'ticket'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from move_ticket, which also changes the bin, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention move_ticket for bin moves or create_ticket for new tickets, leaving the agent without context for choosing between sibling tools.

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