Delete an entire Kanban board and all its data. Provide confirmation to permanently remove the board and its contents.
Delete the whole board and all its data. Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the deletion |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool removes the entire board and all its data, and explicitly requires confirm: true as a safety gate. It does not mention irreversibility or permission needs, but the destructive scope is unambiguously disclosed.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and object, then states the critical confirmation requirement. No filler or redundancies are present; every word earns its place.
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 description is adequate for a simple destructive tool: it names the target, the scope, and the confirm gate. However, it omits explicit irreversibility, does not explain how path determines which board is affected, and offers no contrast with the similarly named kanbn_delete_board sibling, which would help an agent choose 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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Requires confirm: true' only restates the confirm parameter's schema description and adds no extra nuance about path resolution, defaults, or interactions between parameters.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete the whole board and all its data.' This clearly conveys the destructive scope and differentiates it from task-level operations, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like kanbn_delete_board or kanbn_delete_board_file.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_delete_board or kanbn_delete_board_file. The confirm requirement is a precondition, not usage direction, so an agent is left to infer the correct context for this destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.