Find simple tasks on a Kanbn board by title, or list all simple tasks when no title is given, enabling quick inspection of board state without shell access.
Find simple tasks (non-file column lines) by title, or all on the board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| input | No | Title to match, or omit for every simple task |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful scoping behavior: only non-file column lines are considered, and omitting input means board-wide search. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return shape, which leaves some ambiguity.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and target, defines the domain in parentheses, and states the alternative invocation mode. There is no filler or redundant restatement; every clause contributes to agent comprehension.
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 low-complexity discovery tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete and directly actionable. The main gap is the absence of return-format information, which is more relevant because there is no output schema, but the core invocation semantics are clear.
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 the schema already documents 'path' as the project root and 'input' as the title or omission trigger. The description reinforces those behaviors but adds no additional matching syntax, path expectations, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.
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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('simple tasks'), clarifies the resource type ('non-file column lines'), and defines the two operational modes: by title or all on the board. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like kanbn_get_simple_task or kanbn_get_task.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: provide a title to match, or omit it to list all simple tasks on the board. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the two-mode behavior is enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.