openproject-mcp

List boards

op_list_boards

Retrieve all Kanban boards for a specified project to manage tasks visually.

Instructions

List boards (Kanban-style) for a project. Boards are stored as grids scoped to /projects/{id}/boards.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectIdOrIdentifier": "<projectIdOrIdentifier>"
    },
    "name": "op_list_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectIdOrIdentifier`	Yes	Project id or identifier
`raw`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description mentions storage as grids and endpoint path but lacks details on pagination, permissions, or behavior if project is invalid. Adequate but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no extraneous content; front-loaded with the core action and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Simple tool but missing explanation for raw parameter, response format, and pagination; no output schema. Adequate for the general purpose but not fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% with only projectIdOrIdentifier described; description repeats that and adds no insight for raw boolean. Baseline score as description adds minimal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'list boards' and specifies the resource as Kanban-style boards for a project, which distinguishes it from op_get_board (single board) and other listing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for listing boards per project but does not explicitly exclude conditional use or mention alternative tools like op_get_board, leaving some inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.