Fetch every team's key and board-ordered workflow states, providing valid state names required by set_status.
Every team with its key and workflow states in board order. State names are what set_status takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: entries are returned in board order and the returned state names are the valid inputs for set_status, which is a cross-tool contract not captured anywhere in structured fields.
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?
Two short, declarative sentences with no filler, and the content description is front-loaded before the set_status cross-reference. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.
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?
With an output schema present, the description is not obliged to detail return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The set_status linkage supplies the main missing rationale for calling it, leaving little an agent needs that is absent.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with an empty property set, leaving no semantic gap to fill.
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 specific resource (teams) and enumerates what each entry contains (key plus workflow states in board order), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools like list_projects or list_cycles, but the resource naming makes the boundary self-evident.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: by noting that 'state names are what set_status takes,' it signals this is the lookup to run before calling set_status. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing and no named alternative to prefer in other situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.