bowrd_create_boardCreate a new board in Bowrd to organize visual bookmarks by theme, with optional description and public or private visibility.
Create a new board in Bowrd for organizing visual bookmarks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the board (e.g. 'Interior Design', 'App UI Ideas') | |
| is_public | No | Whether the board is public (default: true) | |
| description | No | Optional description explaining the board's theme |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially no behavioral context: no mention of who can create boards, whether the board is owned by the caller, or what happens with the default public visibility.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the minimum needed is present. However, an agent gets no signal about return value shape (e.g. whether the new board ID comes back) or post-creation behavior.
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%, with all three parameters documented in the schema including the is_public default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new board") plus a scope note about what boards are for ("organizing visual bookmarks"). It is distinguishable from the entry-focused siblings by resource, though it never names them explicitly.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives — nothing about checking bowrd_list_boards for duplicates first, or how a board relates to bowrd_create_entry. The intended use is inferable from the name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.