Find potential issues in Kanban board action rules to prevent unexpected behavior. Provide the project root path to scan for warnings and resolve configuration problems.
Get potential issues with the board's action rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not confirm side effects, error conditions, or output structure. The agent is left unaware of what constitutes 'potential issues' or what the response format looks like.
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 extremely brief, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential operational details and does not front-load any distinguishing or warning information, falling short of what an agent needs.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'action rules' refers to, what kinds of issues are reported, or how results are returned. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context to interpret the tool's behavior.
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 single parameter 'path' is described in the schema as 'Path to the project root directory' with 100% coverage, so the schema already handles its semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'potential issues with the board's action rules', which conveys the tool's primary purpose. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like kanbn_get_action_rules by focusing on issues rather than the rules themselves, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.