Set up a new Kanbn board for task tracking by specifying the board name, project directory, and initial columns to begin organizing work.
Initialize a new Kanbn board in the target directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name of the board | |
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| columns | No | Initial board columns |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Initialize a new Kanbn board', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing board is overwritten, whether a directory must already exist, whether files are created, or what happens on failure. For a tool that creates a board, this is minimal behavioral transparency.
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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and adds no unnecessary detail.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what 'initialize' entails (e.g., file creation, config setup), how it interacts with an existing board, whether the path is required to exist, or what the return value indicates. An agent would need to infer behavior from the schema and siblings, making this less than complete for safe 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already adequately describes all three parameters (name, path, columns). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as defaults, constraints, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not contradict or enhance it.
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 states the verb 'Initialize' and the resource 'new Kanbn board' with a location ('target directory'). It is specific about the action, but it does not differentiate from close siblings like kanbn_initialize_board or kanbn_create_board, which likely serve similar purposes. The phrase 'new Kanbn board' helps slightly but does not explicitly distinguish from 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_initialize_board, kanbn_ensure_board, or kanbn_create_board. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over others. It only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.