Standup MCP Server

reorder_column

Move a Standup board column to a new position while keeping its cards, so kanban workflows can be reorganized without losing card placement.

Instructions

Move a column to a new position on its board, keeping its cards

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>",
      "columnId": "<columnId>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "reorder_column"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`index`	Yes	New position among the columns (0-based)
`boardId`	Yes	The board identifier
`columnId`	Yes	The column identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect: cards are preserved during the move ("keeping its cards"), which distinguishes it from a destructive delete/recreate. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether other columns' indices shift, out-of-range index behavior, or reversibility.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb, resource, destination, and the key side-effect clause front-loaded. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with zero annotations on a mutation tool the description should address index-shifting of neighbors and permission expectations. It covers only the cards-preservation behavior, leaving the reindexing semantics an agent must reason about unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents index as the 0-based new position plus the two identifiers. The description adds no format or semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (column) plus the target state (new position on its board), which cleanly separates it from rename_column, delete_column, and add_column in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. the column must already exist on the boardId), and no mention of alternatives such as delete_column plus add_column. The usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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