Move a simple task to another board by providing the target board's slug and optional column and position settings.
Move a simple task onto another board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| input | Yes | Title to match | |
| column | No | Column on the target board (defaults to its first column) | |
| position | No | Position within the target column | |
| targetSlug | Yes | Board slug to move the simple task to |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself. It does not reveal whether the task is removed from its source board, whether the target board must already exist, what happens on title conflicts, or how column/position defaults behave.
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 zero filler words, effectively conveying the core operation at a glance. It is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, but structurally it is clean and economical.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, a seven-word description is insufficient. It omits the disposition of the source task, board existence requirements, column/position semantics, and the simple-task concept that distinguishes it from kanbn_move_task and kanbn_move_simple_task.
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 every parameter is already documented structurally, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'input' matches a task title or what a board slug refers to.
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 names a specific verb ('Move'), a specific resource ('a simple task'), and a destination ('onto another board'), which aligns with the tool name and conveys the core operation. The phrase 'another board' partially differentiates it from kanbn_move_simple_task, though it does not clarify how it differs from kanbn_move_task or kanbn_add_task_to_board.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many relevant siblings (kanbn_move_task, kanbn_move_simple_task, kanbn_promote_simple_task, kanbn_add_task_to_board). There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites stated, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.