List all labels across Kanban boards with card counts and status breakdowns (TODO, IN_PROGRESS, DONE) to identify label usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all existing labels' clearly signals a read-only aggregation operation, and the state breakdowns specify the output composition. It could mention lack of side effects or board scope resolution more explicitly but is not misleading.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives the output detail. No filler or repeated schema information.
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 one-optional-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the scope ('across all cards in the board(s)'), the returned concept ('labels'), and the accompanying counts/state breakdowns. It does not specify response fields or edge cases, but nothing critical is missing for selecting the 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 single boardId parameter is already fully described in the input schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no format or behavior details beyond that, so it meets the baseline without adding extra semantic value.
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'), a specific resource ('existing labels'), and the result shape ('card counts and state breakdowns'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the similarly named sibling mcp_kanban_list_labels.
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 implies a board-wide label-discovery use case and the optional boardId parameter is meaningful, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as mcp_kanban_list_labels or scheduler_query_tasks. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.