get_cardRetrieve a specific Planka card by its ID to access its full details, including title, description, list, and labels.
Get a single card by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | 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 indicates a read operation by using 'Get', but it does not describe error behavior, permissions, field completeness, or any other behavioral trait. For a tool with no annotation support, this is a meaningful gap.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too sparse to fully support selection among sibling tools.
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 simple single-card lookup with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks enough context to distinguish this from get_card_details and provides no guidance on error cases or selection criteria.
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 the description must compensate. It confirms the 'id' parameter is the card identifier, but provides no additional detail about format, expectations, or behavior. The single parameter is simple, but the description does not enrich it beyond what the schema already shows.
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 clear action ('Get') and resource ('a single card'), and identifies the lookup key ('by ID'). It is not a tautology and is understandable, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_card_details, which may also fetch a single card.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus get_card_details or get_all_cards. The phrase 'Get a single card by ID' implies basic usage, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.