Retrieve a Planka card by its ID to access full card details including title, description, and assigned members. Use this tool to fetch specific card information for review or further processing.
Get a card by id (GET /api/cards/{id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. The 'GET' method in the description hints that this is a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state the lack of side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. This falls short of full transparency.
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?
The description is a single short sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. It contains no filler or repetitive information, earning a high score for efficiency.
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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is superficially adequate but lacks details about the return payload, error handling, or prerequisites. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has to infer expected results, which is a gap.
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?
The description adds minimal meaning to the 'id' parameter by indicating it is the card's identifier. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not elaborate on format, source, or validation. The phrase 'by id' is the only semantic contribution.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('card by id'), clearly identifying a single-card retrieval operation. It differentiates from sibling 'planka_read_cards' (plural) by explicitly scoping to one card via id. The inclusion of the REST endpoint adds context but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or the existence of 'planka_read_cards' for listing multiple cards. The requirement of an 'id' parameter is implied but not stated as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.