Lists board projects and categories with task counts. Check before filing tasks or context notes to reuse existing names.
The board's projects and categories, each with how many tasks it has. Check here before filing or leaving a context note under a project, and reuse the names you find.
| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it implies a safe read and describes the returned shape (project names plus task counts). It does not state whether results are paginated, permission-gated, or whether the names are canonical/immutable, but for a zero-parameter read the risk surface is small.
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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the actionable usage hint. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does (projects/categories with task counts). Minor gaps around result scope/pagination remain, but an agent has enough to call and use it.
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 disambiguate; baseline 4 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 the resource (the board's projects and categories) and what each record carries (a task count), which distinguishes it from siblings like fenbs_list_boards and fenbs_list_items. The verb is only implied by the name rather than spelled out, but the resource scope 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?
Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: consult it before filing an item or leaving a context note under a project, and reuse the names found here. It does not explicitly exclude or route against the other list tools, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.