Get the IDs of archived tasks on a Kanbn board by providing the project root path. Use this to access completed or removed tasks.
List the ids of tasks that have been archived.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists IDs, but does not disclose the format of the list (e.g., newline-separated, array), whether it includes tasks from all boards, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.
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?
Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or ordering of results. For a list operation, an agent needs to know what it will receive to use the tool correctly.
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 parameter 'path' is already described. The description does not add any context about how 'path' is used beyond what the schema provides, but with full schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists IDs of archived tasks, which is a specific and distinct operation. It is easily differentiated from siblings like kanbn_archive_task and kanbn_unarchive_task, though it does not explicitly name them.
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?
The description implies it should be used when the agent needs to know which tasks are archived, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The sibling tool kanbn_load_archived_task suggests a related use case, but the description does not mention it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.