Verify whether a task file exists in a Kanbn project by its task ID, independent of board references. Quickly confirm file presence to avoid errors when managing tasks.
Check whether a task file exists, regardless of whether any board references it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| taskId | Yes | ID or filename of the task |
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. It states the tool 'Checks whether a task file exists' – a read-only operation – and clarifies the independence from board references. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean), potential path handling, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid taskId). For a simple existence check this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the key scoping distinction. Every word earns its place – no fluff or repetition.
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 existence-check tool with fully described parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It does not explicitly state a boolean return, but 'Check whether' strongly implies it, and no output schema exists to burden the description further.
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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (path and taskId). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 ('Check') and resource ('task file'), and explicitly scopes 'regardless of whether any board references it', distinguishing it from sibling tools like kanbn_task_exists and kanbn_find_orphaned_tasks. This is clear and differentiable.
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 phrase 'regardless of whether any board references it' implicitely indicates a condition for use, but the description does not provide explicit when/to-not guidance or name alternative tools. It does not mention kanbn_task_exists as an alternative, so an agent must infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.