Find tracked task IDs on a Kanban board, with optional filtering by column to locate tasks in a specific workflow stage.
List tracked task IDs, optionally filtered by column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| columnName | No | Optional column name to filter tasks by |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says it lists task IDs and optionally filters by column; it does not mention read-only behavior, whether it searches all boards, path handling, or what happens when no column is given. The minimal information leaves the agent guessing about important behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the only optional modifier, earning every word. No structural improvements are needed.
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?
The tool has no output schema and many conceptually similar siblings, so the description needs to clarify what counts as a 'tracked task', the scope of listing, and the shape/format of returned IDs. It does none of that, making the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for columnName by explaining it is a filter, but path is not elaborated beyond the schema's 'Path to the project root directory'. The description does not introduce any behavior not already implied by 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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('tracked task IDs') with an optional filter ('by column'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like kanbn_find_untracked_tasks and kanbn_find_simple_tasks by the 'tracked' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 the many similar find/list tools among the siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and kanbn_search, kanbn_find_task_column, 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.