Rename a Kanban board's slug or display name to update its identifier and label. Specify current slug and new values to change project board references.
Rename a secondary board (slug and/or display name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| slug | Yes | Current board slug | |
| newName | No | New display name | |
| newSlug | Yes | New board slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on side effects, such as whether renaming the slug affects file paths, task references, or requires permissions. It also doesn't indicate if the operation is idempotent or if it can fail if the new slug is already taken. The 'secondary board' hint adds minimal context beyond the name.
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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Rename' and includes the key qualifier 'secondary board', with no filler or redundant information.
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 the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of 'secondary board' (vs primary), the constraints on slug format, or the outcome of the operation (e.g., returns new slug). An agent may struggle to know when to use this versus kanbn_create_board or kanbn_delete_board.
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 schema already defines each parameter. The description adds that 'newName' refers to a display name and 'newSlug' to the board slug, which matches the schema. However, it doesn't clarify optionality or relationships (e.g., whether newName can be omitted if only renaming the slug), which would be useful given 4 params.
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 verb 'Rename' and the resource 'secondary board', with the parenthetical clarifying the two aspects (slug and/or display name). This distinguishes it from board creation and deletion siblings, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it's not for the primary board beyond 'secondary'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like ensuring the board exists or that the slug must be valid. The description implies a use case (renaming a secondary board) but provides no contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.