Retrieve the columns (id, name, boardId) of a WEEEK board by board ID, or by board name plus its project.
List the columns of a WEEEK board: id, name, boardId. Pass the board by id, or by name together with its project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | Yes | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a read-only operation and the return fields are disclosed, but nothing is said about permissions, whether the lookup by name is case-sensitive, or what happens if the board/project pair does not resolve.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the invocation rule. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.
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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, lookup semantics, and return shape. Only minor gaps remain (auth/scope behavior, behavior on unresolved board names), and no output schema is present to offload return-value documentation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the raw schema (two string|number properties named board and project) is nearly opaque. The description compensates by explaining the id-vs-(name + project) lookup relationship, which is the key semantic an agent needs. It remains slightly ambiguous whether `project` is an id or a name, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the columns of a WEEEK board") and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, boardId). No sibling tool lists columns, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from weeek_list_boards, weeek_list_projects, or weeek_list_tasks.
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?
The second sentence gives invocation guidance (pass board by id, or by name together with its project), which is useful, but it describes *how* to call rather than *when* to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.