Standup MCP Server

add_sticker

Add an emoji sticker to a Standup kanban card by board and card ID; automatically finds the card's column.

Instructions

Add a sticker (an emoji) to a card. Automatically finds the column containing the card.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "cardId": "<cardId>",
      "sticker": "<sticker>"
    },
    "name": "add_sticker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cardId`	Yes	The card identifier
`boardId`	Yes	The board identifier
`sticker`	Yes	The emoji, e.g. 👍

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it automatically finds the column containing the card, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens if the sticker already exists. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then providing a key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about required permissions, error conditions (e.g., invalid card or sticker), and whether the operation is idempotent. The automatic column-finding is helpful but insufficient for full contextual completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'sticker (an emoji) to a card', which is clear and distinguishable from the sibling remove_sticker. It does not explicitly contrast with remove_sticker, but the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the action 'Add a sticker to a card', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_comment or when not to use it. An agent must infer the context from the verb and resource.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.