Map each task to all other boards that reference it, revealing cross-board dependencies to manage work across Kanban projects.
Map every task to all other boards that reference it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the mapping behavior but does not explicitly disclose whether this is read-only, what the output looks like, or how 'reference' is determined. This leaves side effects and return behavior unstated.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler. Key scope terms are front-loaded.
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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description still omits the output shape and any usage distinction from adjacent tools. It is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100% ('Path to the project root directory'), so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, matching the baseline of 3.
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 ('Map') and identifies the resource (every task) and the target (all other boards that reference it). It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it does not contrast with similarly named siblings like kanbn_cross_board_tasks.
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 about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as kanbn_cross_board_tasks or kanbn_find_task_boards. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.