Retrieves a complete board including its columns, tasks, members, and labels. Provide the board ID to view full board structure and contents.
Get a board with its columns, tasks, members, and labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | Yes | Board ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description usefully discloses that the response aggregates columns, tasks, members, and labels, but it omits any access/permission requirements and says nothing about behavior for invalid or missing board IDs.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the return contents in without waste.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned aggregates does real work in telling the agent what it receives. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only error/not-found behavior left unaddressed.
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% and the single boardId parameter is described as 'Board ID' in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or constraints for the ID beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a board') and enumerates the returned aggregates (columns, tasks, members, labels). It is clearly distinguishable from task/label/assignee siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular/plural pair get_boards.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative get_boards for listing multiple boards. The agent must infer when a single-board fetch is the right call versus the sibling list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.