Creates a new board inside a chosen Weeek project so teams can group and manage related tasks. Provide the target project's ID and preferred board name.
Create a board in a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Board name | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement about required permissions, whether the board is created empty (no columns/tags), what is returned, or whether the operation is idempotent. 'Create' at least signals a write operation, but that is the sole behavioral signal.
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 short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover permissions, side effects, and what the caller gets back; it covers none of these. Only the two fully-documented parameters are adequately specified.
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 both parameters (name, projectId) are documented in the schema itself, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. This is the baseline case where the structured schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Create a board') and scopes it to a project, which is enough to distinguish it from the list-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, 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.
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, no prerequisites (e.g. must the project already exist?), and no mention of related operations such as listing boards afterwards. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.