kanban_link_docAssociate documentation paths with tickets to centralize project information. Link a specific doc to a Kanban ticket for direct reference from the task.
Associate a documentation path with a ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docPath | Yes | ||
| linkType | No | ||
| ticketId | Yes | ||
| projectKey | No | ||
| docsProjectId | No | ||
| kanbanProjectId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | 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 behavioral disclosure. 'Associate' implies a mutation, but the description does not say whether the link is created, updated, or overwritten, nor does it disclose idempotency, failure behavior, or side effects.
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, which is economical but under-specified for a tool with six parameters and no property descriptions. It lacks structure and additional useful detail, so this reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and no schema property descriptions, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not explain how docsProjectId, kanbanProjectId, or projectKey relate to the operation, nor when linkType is needed. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with invocation semantics.
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 only clarifies two concepts: the documentation path and the ticket. The optional parameters linkType, projectKey, docsProjectId, and kanbanProjectId are left entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.
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 ('Associate') and identifies the two key resources ('documentation path' and 'ticket'). It is clear in what the tool accomplishes, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like kanban_list_doc_links or kanban_list_ticket_links.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention reading existing links with list tools, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the action described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.