kaiten_list_columnsRetrieve all columns for a Kaiten board and identify each column's status type (queued, in progress, or done) to map workflow stages.
Возвращает колонки (columns) доски. У колонки есть поле type: 1 — очередь, 2 — в работе, 3 — готово.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | ID доски |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose the key semantic detail that column.type maps to 1/2/3 (queue/in-progress/done) — genuinely useful beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, permissions, or pagination behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the useful type-field semantics. No filler, though it is arguably slightly under-specified rather than maximally efficient.
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 single-param list tool, the description covers what is returned and one important return-value field. Missing are the required-ness of board_id (schema handles it) and any hint about what to do with columns downstream, but nothing critical is broken.
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?
Only one parameter (board_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at this baseline.
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 and resource ("Возвращает колонки доски"), so the agent knows it lists columns of a board. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like kaiten_list_lanes or kaiten_get_board, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 on when to call this versus kaiten_get_board (which may already include columns) or kaiten_list_lanes. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.