Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kanbn-mcp

kanbn-mcp

by kjduling
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kanbn_delete_board_file

Delete a secondary Kanbn board file and retrieve the IDs of tasks that become orphaned, keeping project boards tidy.

Instructions

Delete a secondary board file, returning orphaned task IDs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "kanbn_delete_board_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoPath to the project root directory
slugYesBoard slug to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description itself conveys that this is destructive and reveals the return value ('orphaned task IDs'). However, it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to the orphaned tasks, or any required permissions, so there are still gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The delete target and the return value are stated compactly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential outcome but omits usage context, effect on tasks, and any caveats about the operation. It is adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'slug' and 'path.' The description's terms 'secondary' and 'orphaned task IDs' add context but no parameter-level details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('secondary board file'), and adds the distinguishing outcome 'returning orphaned task IDs.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly state how it differs from the sibling kanbn_delete_board.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'secondary board file' implies a scope but the description never says when to choose this over kanbn_delete_board or kanbn_find_orphaned_tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools