Persist Kanbn board settings to a config file, ensuring project configuration is saved and reusable.
Save the Kanbn config to a config file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| config | Yes | Kanbn config object to persist |
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 must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It states the tool saves config, implying a file write, but does not disclose whether it overwrites an existing file, what path resolution occurs, or whether it creates directories. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.
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 no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and the structure clearly communicates the action and target.
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 two-parameter save operation with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, the agent still lacks important context about file overwrite behavior, default path handling, and what a successful save returns.
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 parameters are already documented: 'path' is the project root and 'config' is the object to persist. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (save) and the resource (Kanbn config), and it is distinct from siblings like kanbn_get_config which reads config. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related config or board tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kanbn_get_config, nor does it mention any prerequisites, side effects, or context that would help an agent decide to call it. Usage is only implied by the verb 'save'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.