Create a new board in Bowrd to organize visual bookmarks. Add a name, optional description, and choose whether the board is public.
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.
v1.1.0Does 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. It says 'Create' but omits permissions/auth requirements, side effects, visibility consequences, and what is returned after creation, leaving a mutation tool largely opaque.
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 no filler words; every part of it contributes to identifying the action and resource.
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 three-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. With no annotations, it should at least note the mutation's effect or visibility behavior, which it does not.
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 each parameter (name, is_public, description) well documented including a default and examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Create') and resource ('board') plus its purpose (organizing visual bookmarks), which clearly separates it from sibling entry tools like bowrd_create_entry. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bowrd_create_entry, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.