Assign or change user roles and access on Kanban boards, with actions to create, view, update, or delete memberships.
Manage board memberships with various operations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The ID of the membership | |
| role | No | The role of the user in the board | |
| action | Yes | The action to perform | |
| userId | No | The ID of the user | |
| boardId | No | The ID of the board | |
| canComment | No | Whether the user can comment on the board |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Manage board memberships' implies CRUD operations but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, whether operations are destructive, or what happens when memberships are created/updated/deleted. The description is too generic to provide meaningful behavioral context.
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 extremely concise with just 6 words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably too brief given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters supporting 5 different actions). While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail that would help an agent understand the tool's scope.
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 tool with 6 parameters supporting 5 different actions (including destructive operations like 'delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the different actions do, or provide any behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.
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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 states 'Manage board memberships with various operations' which provides a general purpose (managing memberships) but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It doesn't specify the exact operations available or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like mcp_kanban_project_board_manager which might also handle board-level operations.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or provide context about when board membership management is appropriate versus other board-related operations available in the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.