Skip to main content
Glama
fenbs-ai

fenbs-mcp

Official

fenbs_create_item

Create a task on a fenbs board for features, enhancements, or bugs, with duplicate checks against open and recently finished tasks and an optional idempotency key for automated sources.

Instructions

Add a task to a board. Requires permission to add tasks. fenbs first checks the open tasks and the ones finished in the last 14 days: if one looks like the same thing, nothing is made and you get the likely matches (created: false). An open match: comment on it (fenbs_comment). A finished one ("finished" says how and when): move it back to To Do (fenbs_update_item lane "backlog") if it is the same thing back again, or call again with unlessSimilar: false and relatesTo its ref for a new task linked to it. Call again with unlessSimilar: false alone if yours is genuinely different. From an automated source, pass key: the same key never files twice. note is the problem (what, why, where); plan is how it will be done, when that is known -- keep the two apart. A free board near its limit adds a top-level plan notice (the free plan of the board: tasks left, and upgradeUrl; the plan of the task itself is inside created): tell your user how many are left and give them the upgradeUrl. A refusal with upgradeUrl (a full or read-only board) is the same: relay the message and give them the link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoOptional, for automated sources (a Sentry issue id, a CI job, an error fingerprint): a live task with this key is returned instead of a new one. Up to 120 characters.
kindYes
laneNoThe lane, by its key. People see backlog as To Do, next as Next Up, doing as In Progress and done as Completed: use those names when you talk to people.
noteNoThe Problem box: what is wrong or missing, why it matters, and where -- file and line for code; repro steps for a bug. Written once; the fix goes in plan, not here.
planNoThe Plan box: how it will be done -- the steps, the files to change, the traps, and how it will be checked. Leave it out until somebody knows; do not put a PLAN heading in the note instead.
sizeNoHow big: xs (under an hour), s (an afternoon), m (a day or two), l (about a week), xl (too big -- split it). "none" takes a size off.
boardYes
titleYes
projectNoThe project this belongs to, by name -- for software, usually the repository or app. A new name creates the project; case is ignored when matching, so reuse the names fenbs_list_boards shows.
categoryNoAn optional second grouping, by name, e.g. "Checkout" or "Mobile". A new name creates it.
priorityNo1 is most urgent. 1-2 High, 3-5 Medium, 6-10 Low. Leave it out for 5, an ordinary task.
relatesToNoRefs of tasks this one relates to -- e.g. the finished task a bug has come back from. Linked both ways.
testNotesNoHow it was tested: what was checked, where (dev, a private API, live), the result -- and what was NOT checked. Rewritten whole, like plan; "" clears it.
testStatusNoHow it was tested: untested (the default), tested, partly, failed, or needs-check -- what only a person can confirm (a store build, a real payment, a live page). Never claim tested for a check you did not run; use needs-check or partly and say what is left.
unlessSimilarNoDefault true: hold back when an open or recently finished task looks like the same thing. false files it regardless.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses permission requirements, duplicate-check behavior returning likely matches and created: false, free-board plan notices with upgradeUrl, and refusal behavior for full or read-only boards.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with the core action and permission note, then moves through duplicate handling and edge cases without obvious filler. Given the 15 parameters and no annotations, the length is largely justified, though it could be structured more scannably.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return shape via created: false, likely matches, plan notices, and upgradeUrl refusals. It covers permissions, deduplication, and downstream agent actions, leaving no major gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is already 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema, such as the combination of unlessSimilar: false with relatesTo to link a new task to a finished one. It also reinforces the note/plan separation and the key deduplication rule in context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a task to a board.' It distinguishes the creation operation from siblings by explicitly referring to fenbs_comment and fenbs_update_item as alternatives when a match exists.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit decision tree for when to create, when to comment on an open match, when to move a finished match back with fenbs_update_item, and when to call again with unlessSimilar: false. It also explains the automated-source key behavior and the permission requirement.

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