bowrd_list_boardsLists all boards with their ID, name, slug, description, and pin counts, enabling quick overview of available visual bookmark collections.
List all boards in Bowrd with their ID, name, slug, description, and pin counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that it returns every board and which fields are included, which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior for an empty workspace.
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 sentence with no padding, and the returned field list is front-loaded right after the action. Nothing is redundant.
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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating ID, name, slug, description, and pin counts. Only ordering/results-limit behavior is left unstated, a minor gap for a simple list tool.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing or implying filtering options.
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 ('List all boards in Bowrd') and immediately names what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, though the board-vs-entry split in the sibling names makes the distinction reasonably obvious.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of exclusions, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the usage is strongly implied: call it to discover boards and their IDs. No alternative is named (e.g., create_board is a write, so no real ambiguity).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.