Retrieve the contributors of a Kanbn workspace as normalized objects by specifying the project root path. Provides structured contributor data for AI assistants managing boards.
Get the workspace's contributors, normalised to the object form.
| 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 behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, and 'normalised to the object form' reveals output transformation, but it does not mention default behavior when the optional path is omitted, error conditions, or what 'object form' contains.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the normalization detail without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
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 read tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks an explanation of what 'object form' means and does not describe the returned contributor data. With no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context would make it complete.
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 single 'path' parameter is already documented as 'Path to the project root directory.' The description adds no semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline score applies.
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 identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('the workspace's contributors'), and adds that results are 'normalised to the object form.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like kanbn_find_contributor or kanbn_collect_contributor_values, so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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. The sibling list contains several contributor-related tools, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or pointers to them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.