Retrieve all columns (taskboxes) from a property's task board to organize SEO tasks by status.
The task board's columns (taskboxes) for a property.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_taskboxes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The tool has no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description states it lists columns, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention any authorization needs. A score of 3 is appropriate because the operation is inherently safe, but more explicitness would improve transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could include a bit more detail (e.g., 'Lists the columns (taskboxes) of the task board associated with a specific property.') without being verbose. Score 4 for being concise and direct.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It identifies the output (taskboxes) but fails to explain how to specify the property (implied by the need for a property identifier in additional properties) or what the return format looks like. For a list operation that likely requires a property parameter, this is incomplete.
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 input schema has 0 defined parameters but allows additional properties. Schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description does not add any parameter details, such as hinting at the required property identifier. While the schema itself is sufficient for an agent to pass arbitrary properties, the description misses an opportunity to clarify what properties are expected. Baseline 3 is given due to full schema coverage.
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?
The description 'The task board's columns (taskboxes) for a property.' clearly states that the tool lists the columns of a task board. The verb 'list' is implied by the name, and the resource (taskboxes) is specified. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_tags. However, it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., 'Retrieves the list of columns...').
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with list_tasks or other list tools. It also doesn't specify prerequisites or required parameters. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.