Planka MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate which actions are read-only versus mutative, what permissions might be required, whether operations are atomic or batched, or what happens on failure. For a tool with 9 different actions including destructive ones like 'delete', this lack of behavioral context is critically inadequate.

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?

While technically concise (one sentence), this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence fails to convey necessary information about the tool's scope, behavior, or usage context. Every sentence should earn its place, but this sentence provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters, 9 different actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's multi-action nature, how actions differ, what each action returns, or how to handle the various parameters across different operations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact across different actions, clarify conditional requirements, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 'Manage kanban cards with various operations' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'mcp_kanban_card_manager' without specifying what 'manage' entails. While it mentions 'various operations', it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'mcp_kanban_task_manager' or 'mcp_kanban_list_manager', leaving the agent unclear about the specific scope of card management versus other kanban components.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With multiple kanban-related tools available (comment_manager, label_manager, list_manager, etc.), the agent receives no indication about what operations are specific to cards versus other entities, nor any prerequisites or contextual cues for selecting this multi-action tool over more specialized alternatives.

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