bticket_list_columnsLists columns of a B-Ticket board by UUID, showing stages such as Development, Waiting QA, and Concluded. Use to view board structure.
Lista as colunas de um quadro (GET /api/quadro/{uuid}/colunas), ex.: Desenvolvimento, Aguardando QA, Concluído / Publicado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_uuid | Yes | UUID do quadro |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET endpoint and sample column names but no further behavioral details such as ordering, empty results, or response structure, which is acceptable given the safety annotations.
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 conveys the verb, resource, endpoint, and concrete examples with no filler. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is low-complexity with one documented parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema. The description's examples partly fill the missing return-value gap, though it could state the exact response shape (e.g., array of column names) explicitly.
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% for the single required parameter board_uuid ('UUID do quadro'). The description does not add parameter detail beyond that, so the schema carries the parameter semantics and 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 states the specific verb ('Lista'), the resource ('colunas de um quadro'), and gives the HTTP endpoint plus representative examples. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling board/ticket/card/list tools.
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 makes the operation unambiguous but does not state when to prefer it over siblings such as bticket_list_boards or bticket_list_cards, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.