Check whether a Kanbn board exists by its slug. Provide the slug and optional project root path to verify presence before creating tasks or initializing the board.
Check whether a board exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| slug | Yes | Board slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does 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 only restates the tool name and implies a read-only check via the word 'check,' but it does not disclose return type, error behavior, path handling, or side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is minimal and adds little beyond the tool name.
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 existence check with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. There is no output schema or annotations, so return semantics and behavior are left to inference; the tool is callable but not fully self-explanatory.
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 both 'path' and 'slug' are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a board exists.' This is distinct from create, delete, and list board tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar validation or ensure-type siblings like kanbn_validate_board or kanbn_ensure_board.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention kanbn_validate_board, kanbn_ensure_board, kanbn_list_boards, or any other sibling, and it provides no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.