Planka MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate which operations are read-only versus destructive, what permissions are required, whether operations are synchronous or asynchronous, or any rate limits. The generic 'manage' term obscures that this tool includes both read operations (get_projects, get_board) and destructive operations (delete_board).

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?

The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence structure is clean but fails to convey necessary information.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 8 distinct actions (including both reads and destructive operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, differentiate it from siblings, describe behavioral characteristics, or provide any operational context. This is a complex multi-operation tool that needs much more descriptive support.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters relate to different actions, which parameters are required for which actions, or provide any semantic context. 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 projects and boards with various operations' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'mcp_kanban_project_board_manager' without specifying what 'manage' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'mcp_kanban_card_manager' or 'mcp_kanban_list_manager', which also manage aspects of the kanban system. The description lacks specific verbs and resources beyond the generic 'manage'.

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 7 sibling tools that handle cards, comments, labels, lists, memberships, stopwatches, and tasks, there's no indication of which operations belong to this project/board manager versus those other tools. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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