get_all_listsFetch all lists (columns) for a board by providing its board ID, then view the full column structure.
List all lists (columns) on a board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a non-destructive read operation ('List') but says nothing about whether archived lists are included, ordering, pagination, or behavior when boardId is invalid or nonexistent. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the tool name already implies.
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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words and the verb front-loaded. The '(columns)' parenthetical earns its place by mapping domain terminology. It is concise rather than padded, though the brevity does contribute to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Minimally adequate for a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema that documents the return shape. However, it lacks routing guidance versus get_list and any behavioral caveats, so an agent must guess about ordering, archived-list inclusion, and error handling.
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 0%, so boardId is undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. The phrase 'on a board' only restates the parameter's self-evident meaning as a board identifier; it does not clarify ID format, where to obtain valid values, or any constraints.
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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (all lists on a board), with the parenthetical '(columns)' adding domain clarity that lists are also called columns. The 'all' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the singular get_list sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_list, or how it relates to board-level operations. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'all'; no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.