bowrd_list_entriesList Bowrd pins or entries, optionally filtered by board ID, to browse visual bookmarks and inspect board contents.
List pins/entries from Bowrd, optionally filtered by a specific board ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of entries to return (default: 20) | |
| board_id | No | Optional board ID to filter entries by |
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 declares the safe read profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds little beyond naming the resource and optional filtering; it does not comment on default result volume (limit default 20 / max 50) or pagination behavior that an agent might want when listing a whole board.
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; the optional filter is mentioned last where it belongs. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits routing guidance against the search sibling, which is the main remaining gap.
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%, so both limit and board_id are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the board_id filter, adding no syntax or format detail, 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 (List) and resource (pins/entries) with a clear scope note ('from Bowrd'), so an agent knows it's a retrieval tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling bowrd_search_entries, leaving ambiguity about which to call.
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?
The phrase 'optionally filtered by a specific board ID' implies one usage mode, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus bowrd_search_entries or when not to use it. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.