Locate which Kanbn boards and columns contain a specific task by providing its ID. Helps track task placement across multiple project boards.
Find which boards and columns reference a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention return format, scope (e.g., across all boards), or any edge cases. This is a minimal, non-contradictory but under-informative description.
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 conveys the exact purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 lookup tool with fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits any detail about what the returned data looks like or how the results are structured, leaving a moderate gap.
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 taskId are already documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('boards and columns') with a clear object (a task), making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, but its scope is distinct enough from related tools like kanbn_find_task_column.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_find_task_column or kanbn_cross_board_tasks. The description merely states what it does without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.