Retrieve all boards for a specific Weeek project by project ID, returning each board's ID and name. Use it to discover board structure before managing tasks.
List boards in a project (id, name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or rate limits, and only incidentally hints at output shape via '(id, name)'. That is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably too terse for its behavioral gaps, but as a sizing/structure judgment it is efficient.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and sketches the return shape. It stops short of pagination/ordering behavior, but the tool's low complexity keeps the omission from being severe.
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 there is exactly one parameter, documented as 'Project id'. The description's '(id, name)' refers to returned fields, not the input, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (boards) with a clear scope qualifier (in a project) plus the projected fields (id, name). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like weeek_list_board_columns or weeek_create_board, but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent can route correctly.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only implicit signal is the required projectId and the 'in a project' scope. An agent must infer that this is the board-enumeration step before calling weeek_list_board_columns or weeek_list_tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.