Initialize a new Kanban board by specifying its name, project path, and starting columns.
Alias for kanbn_init_board.
| 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 and the description reveals no behavior beyond the alias relationship. It does not mention whether initialization is destructive, idempotent, or creates or overwrites files, nor what side effects occur. The description therefore fails to disclose any behavioral traits.
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 short and front-loaded, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single alias pointer replaces all substantive content. It earns its place only as a cross-reference, not as a tool description.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line alias note, the description is incomplete for a tool that takes three parameters and may initialize files or board structure. It lacks the canonical definition of kanbn_init_board, behavior details, and expected result. An agent would have to guess at the operation's semantics.
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%, with name, path, and columns each described in the input schema. The description itself adds nothing about parameter semantics, but because the structured schema carries that burden, the baseline of 3 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 only says 'Alias for kanbn_init_board,' which names a sibling tool but never states what initializing a board does, what resources it affects, or what effect it has. 'Initialize' and 'init_board' are essentially synonymous with the tool name, so the description borders on tautology. It does not stand alone as a purpose statement.
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 invoke this tool, when not to, or how it differs from kanbn_ensure_board or kanbn_create_board. The only instruction is that it is an alias for kanbn_init_board, which simply defers the decision without explaining the initiating conditions. An agent cannot decide between this and the many board-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.