Reads the active kanban configuration—columns, allowed transitions, custom fields, database path, and web port—so agents know where tasks can move and which fields exist.
读取当前生效的看板配置：栏目、合法流转、自定义字段、数据库路径、Web 端口。在决定「能移到哪一列」「有哪些自定义字段」之前先看它。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. It states '读取' (read) and lists the configuration contents, which implies a safe read with no mutation, but it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, permissions, or freshness guarantees. Basic behavior is inferable but not fully disclosed.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a precise usage cue. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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 should indicate what is returned; it does so by listing columns, legal transitions, custom fields, database path, and web port. This is largely sufficient for a zero-parameter read tool, though it could note the response format or whether config is live.
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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% description coverage. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on return contents instead.
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: '读取当前生效的看板配置' (read the currently effective board configuration), and enumerates the contents (columns, legal transitions, custom fields, DB path, web port). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like board_snapshot or list_columns, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Gives clear context for use: '在决定「能移到哪一列」「有哪些自定义字段」之前先看它' (look at it before deciding which column to move to or what custom fields exist). This tells the agent when to invoke it, but no alternatives are named and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.