Move an existing task to a different column on a Kanbn board. Specify the task ID and target column to update its status directly through MCP.
Move an existing task to a different column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task | |
| targetColumn | Yes | Column to move the task into |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic mutation—moving an existing task to a different column—but does not mention validation behavior, error cases, whether the target column must already exist, or what happens if the task is already in the target column.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core 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?
The tool is relatively simple, the schema is complete, and no output schema is expected, so the missing return-value detail is not a major gap. However, the description omits usage boundaries among the many sibling move-related tools and does not disclose failure behavior, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than fully 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?
The schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond the structured information. The phrases 'existing task' and 'different column' slightly reinforce the parameter semantics, but the description does not explain formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Move ... existing task') and names the destination ('a different column'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling move tools such as kanbn_move_simple_task or kanbn_move_simple_task_to_board, so it is not fully distinct.
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. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling move tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context 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.