teamhood_get_board_structureGet the rows and statuses of a Teamhood board using its board ID. The statuses are returned as a flat list, without status groups.
Geeft de rijen en statussen van een board. Let op: de statussen komen als platte lijst terug, zonder statusgroepen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | Yes | ID van het board. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait: statuses come back as a flat list without status groups, which prevents an agent from expecting nested structure. It does not mention side effects (none expected) or other response details, but the key caveat is useful.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the important caveat about flat statuses is placed in the second. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (rows and statuses) and flags a likely surprise (flat list without groups). It could be more explicit about row representation, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.
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%; the schema already documents boardId as 'ID van het board.' The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond this, so it meets the baseline for schema-driven parameter clarity but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb 'Geeft' (returns) and identifies the resource: rows and statuses of a board. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_boards by focusing on internal board structure, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when you need a specific board's rows and statuses, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tool. The flat-list warning hints at interpretation of results, not at tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.