Archive a task on a Kanban board by its task ID, removing it from active workflow while preserving its history.
Archive a task on the Kanbn board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to archive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Archive a task' without explaining whether the action is reversible, what state changes occur, or what side effects may affect the board. This is minimal behavioral disclosure without real transparency.
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 short sentence with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so the structure does not earn high marks for quality.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves substantial gaps: it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or prerequisites. Parameter coverage is complete, but the missing behavioral context makes the tool hard to invoke safely and confidently.
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%: both 'path' and 'taskId' have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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 uses a specific verb 'Archive' and names the resource 'a task on the Kanbn board,' so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like kanbn_delete_task or kanbn_unarchive_task beyond the action itself.
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 such as kanbn_delete_task, kanbn_move_task, or kanbn_unarchive_task. The description provides no prerequisites or exclusions, so usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.