kanban_column_top_ticketGet the highest-priority ticket from a Kanban column by project key and column. Optionally skip done or review tickets to focus on actionable items.
Return the highest-priority ticket (lowest priority value) from a column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columnId | No | ||
| skipDone | No | ||
| columnName | No | ||
| projectKey | Yes | ||
| skipReview | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return value and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens when the column is empty, how conflicts are resolved, or whether skipDone/skipReview alter the outcome. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 sentence with zero filler, stating the exact purpose and the ordering rule in a front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place.
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?
With five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too terse to be complete. It does not explain how to identify a column or what the filter parameters do. While an output schema may cover the return shape, the lack of input guidance leaves the agent guessing about required combinations of columnId and columnName, and the meaning of skipDone and skipReview.
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 description provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain how to specify the column (columnId vs columnName), the role of projectKey, or what skipDone and skipReview do. Since the description is the only source of parameter semantics and it says nothing, this dimension scores at the bottom.
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 clearly states the tool returns the highest-priority ticket from a column, using the specific phrase 'highest-priority ticket (lowest priority value)' which disambiguates the ordering semantics. It is distinct enough from siblings like kanban_find_column_tickets or kanban_search_tickets, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanban_find_column_tickets or kanban_search_tickets. The description lacks any context about when this tool is the right choice, such as 'when you only need the single highest-priority item' or 'instead of listing all column tickets.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.