Create an empty column on a Standup kanban board to add new workflow stages; specify board, name, and optional index.
Add an empty column to a board
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The column name | |
| index | No | Position among the columns (0-based). Defaults to the end. | |
| boardId | Yes | The board identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the new column is empty, which is useful, but does not disclose permissions, side effects on existing columns, whether the board must exist, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and the target resource, making it appropriately sized for a simple creation tool.
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 simple, and the schema covers all parameters with full descriptions, so an agent can determine the required inputs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally mention prerequisites or side effects. It is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral context thin.
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%, so boardId, name, and index are fully documented in the schema, including the index default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add an empty column to a board.' It clearly distinguishes add from sibling operations like rename_column, reorder_column, and delete_column. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries, so it falls short of the highest clarity tier.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reorder_column or update_column_agents. No prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context are provided. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.