Restore an archived task to active status on a Kanbn board by supplying its task ID. Optionally specify the project root path if the board is elsewhere.
Alias for kanbn_unarchive_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task to unarchive |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. iIt says the tool is an alias for unarchive but does not describe the acttual side effects (e.g., moving a task from archived to active, mutating board files) or any requirements beyond the schema.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the key alias relationship is front-loaded and easy to parse. It could be slightly more expansive, but as an alias definition it is appropriately terse.
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 simple alias with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits the core behavior and any effects, so an agent would need to consult the sibling tool's definition to fully understand what calling this tool will do.
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% and already documents path and taskId clearly. The description adds no extra parameter nuance, so it stays at the baseline 3 rather than being penalized or rewarded.
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 identifies the tool as an alias for kanbn_unarchive_task, so the agent can infer the operation is 'unarchive'. However, it never states the actual behavior (restoring an archived task) in its own terms, relying on the sibling's name to carry meaning.
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?
Alias for kanbn_unarchive_task" directly tells the agent this tool should be used exactly when kanbn_unarchive_task would be used, naming the relevant sibling. It does not add extra context about when unarchiving is appropriate, but the alias relationship is an explicit usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.