Moves a project card to another column and regenerates the desk page; leaving Done restores an archived card to the board.
Move a card to another column, then regenerate the desk page. Leaving done brings an archived card back onto the board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Card id | |
| note | No | Optional short evidence line, such as a commit or URL. Omit to keep the current note. Blank clears it. | |
| column | Yes | Target column |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses two important side effects: moving a card regenerates the desk page, and leaving 'done' unarchives the card. It does not cover permissions, error conditions, or return behavior, but the key non-obvious behaviors are surfaced.
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 two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and a valuable caveat second. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 mutation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and key side effects. It does not explain return value or edge-case handling, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of 'column' but adds no details beyond what the schema provides for id, note, or column.
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 states a specific verb and resource: moving a card to another column. It clearly differentiates the operation from generic card updates, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like update_card.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose, and the note about leaving 'done' provides a useful caveat. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus update_card or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.