kanban_list_doc_linksRetrieve all documentation links attached to a ticket using its ID. This tool returns the list, solving the need to locate relevant docs quickly.
Retrieve documentation links associated with a ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticketId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| links | 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 disclosure burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, error cases, or whether the links are URLs or internal IDs; it also does not explicitly confirm non-mutation.
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 one short sentence with no filler and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter read tool.
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?
The output schema covers return values, and the single required parameter is simple, so the basic call can be made from this definition. However, the absence of usage guidance and the near-twin sibling kanban_list_ticket_links leave an agent uncertain about when this tool is the right choice.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain ticketId, but it only says 'associated with a ticket,' which is largely inferable from the parameter name. It does not specify how ticketId is used, expected format, or any relationship to the returned links beyond the obvious.
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 ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('documentation links') and its scope ('associated with a ticket'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 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 choose this tool over alternatives; it does not mention kanban_list_ticket_links, kanban_link_doc, or any exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.