List the boards you belong to and the role you hold on each, so you can confirm access and permissions before managing board content.
List the boards you are a member of, with the role you hold on each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the access-filtered scope and that a role is returned per board, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether it hits the network. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so this is adequate rather than rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint and the returned field are both packed into the first clause an agent reads.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return shape; it does so by naming the role field. For a trivial zero-param list tool this is nearly sufficient, with only ordering/pagination left unspecified.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.
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), and adds scope ('you are a member of') plus return content ('the role you hold on each'). No sibling tool concerns boards, so differentiation is moot, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is implied by the membership scoping ('boards you are a member of'), which tells the agent this returns only accessible boards. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many fenbs_list_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.