Validate a Kanbn board's structure and content, returning true when valid or a list of parsing errors to fix issues.
Validate the board and return true or a list of parsing errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Path to the project root directory | |
| save | No | Re-save files while validating (default: false) |
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 disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals the return type but omits that setting save=true will re-save files, a write side effect. It also doesn't explain whether validation is read-only by default.
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, efficient sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the core action. It borders on under-specification, but structurally it is concise and clear.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context: the side effect of save=true (file writes), the nature of 'parsing errors', and default path behavior. An agent cannot fully predict side effects or return shape from this definition alone.
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%, with both parameters already described ('Path to the project root directory', 'Re-save files while validating (default: false)'). The description adds no additional meaning about path or save beyond what the schema provides.
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 ('Validate') and resource ('the board'), and specifies the outcome ('return true or a list of parsing errors'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like kanbn_validate_board_slug, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this validates the full board while kanbn_validate_board_slug checks slugs, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.