Create a new secondary Kanbn board by defining its slug, name, columns, and project path for task management.
Create a new secondary board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Display name | |
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| slug | Yes | Board slug | |
| columns | No | Initial board columns | |
| options | No | Low-level board options | |
| description | No | Board description |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'create,' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the tool is idempotent, what happens if the slug already exists, where files are written, or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for a creation operation.
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 filler words or redundant detail. It is concise, though it may be too terse to fully support correct invocation given the tool's complexity and number of siblings.
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 six parameters, a nested options object, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar board-related sibling tools, a one-sentence description is not enough. The description omits behavioral details, prerequisites, failure modes, and guidance on how this relates to the board lifecycle, making it incomplete for reliable autonomous use.
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%, with each parameter having a basic description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond labeling the board as 'secondary.' The schema itself already provides the necessary parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Create a new secondary board.' The word 'secondary' gives some differentiation from primary-board initialization tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools. It is clear enough for an agent to know what operation is intended.
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 about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as kanbn_init_board, kanbn_initialize_board, or kanbn_ensure_board. The word 'secondary' implies it is for non-primary boards, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.