List task files not in the Kanban index by supplying the project root path, revealing untracked tasks that need attention.
List task files that aren't in the index.
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden of conveying safety and behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'not in the index' specifies the selection criteria. However, it does not clarify what 'the index' refers to, what the output shape is, or how the optional path parameter affects results.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the operation and its selection criterion, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves the meaning of 'index' implicit and does not state what the returned task file list looks like. The lack of annotations and output schema means a bit more context would help, though this is not a complex tool.
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' has a schema description ('Path to the project root directory'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about how the path is used or whether it is required, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('task files that aren't in the index'), so an agent can tell this is a discovery/read operation. It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like kanbn_find_tracked_tasks, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The term 'index' is slightly ambiguous, preventing a 5.
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 about when to use this tool versus related tools such as kanbn_find_tracked_tasks, kanbn_find_missing_task_files, or kanbn_find_orphaned_tasks. The description only states what it does, not when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.