List labels across all Kanban cards, showing card counts and state breakdowns (TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE) to quickly analyze label usage and workflow distribution.
List all existing labels across all cards in the board(s) with card counts and state breakdowns (e.g. TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | No | Optional board ID to scope label discovery (searches all boards if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the aggregation behavior: labels across all cards with counts and state breakdowns. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, whether empty labels are included, or any performance implications of searching all boards.
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?
One focused sentence front-loads the action and result, and the parenthetical example of state values adds useful concreteness. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the nature of the returned data. It lacks explicit alternative routing and exact return shape, but the low complexity and complete schema mean no critical information is missing.
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 single parameter boardId is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including the behavior when omitted. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('labels across all cards in the board(s)') and adds distinctive output details (card counts and state breakdowns). It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling scheduler_list_labels, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as mcp_kanban_label_manager or scheduler_list_labels, and it states no exclusions or conditions. The only contextual hint about scoping lives in the input schema, not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.