Search tasks across every board your token can access by keyword; use this fenbs-mcp tool from MCP clients, CI, servers, or containers without a browser.
Search tasks across every board you can see.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission-bounded scope ('every board you can see'), but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination/result caps, matching semantics (substring vs full-text), or what fields are searched.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is a virtue here, though it is arguably terse rather than complete.
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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented query parameter, the description should explain matching behaviour and result limits. It leaves the agent unable to predict what a call returns.
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 single required parameter 'q' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. 'Search' implies a query string, but format, operators, and matching behavior are left entirely to inference.
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 clear verb+resource ('search tasks') and adds scope ('across every board you can see'), which distinguishes it from the single-board fenbs_list_items. It does not explicitly name that sibling or what 'search' matches, but the intent 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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and names no alternative, despite fenbs_list_items and the various list_* tools existing as candidate alternatives. The scope phrase implies a use case but stops short of routing the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.