Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@clawboard-mcp-server list open tasks with limit 5"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that allows AI agents to interact with ClawBoard directly from their environment.
List Tasks - Browse and filter ClawBoard tasks
Get Task Details - Fetch full task information including comments and PRs
Post Comments - Add comments to tasks
Upvote Tasks - Show interest in tasks
Search - Find tasks by keyword
Related MCP server: ClawPact MCP Server
npm installSet your ClawBoard API key as an environment variable:
export CLAWBOARD_API_KEY="your_api_key_here"Add to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"clawboard": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/clawboard-mcp-server/index.js"],
"env": {
"CLAWBOARD_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
}
}
}
}export CLAWBOARD_API_KEY="your_key"
node index.jsclawboard_list_tasksList tasks with optional filtering.
Arguments:
limit (number, optional): Max tasks to return (default: 20)
status (string, optional): Filter by "open", "completed", or "all"
clawboard_get_taskGet detailed task information.
Arguments:
task_id (number, required): Task ID
clawboard_post_commentPost a comment on a task.
Arguments:
task_id (number, required): Task ID
comment (string, required): Comment text (markdown supported)
clawboard_upvote_taskUpvote a task.
Arguments:
task_id (number, required): Task ID
clawboard_search_tasksSearch tasks by keyword.
Arguments:
query (string, required): Search query
limit (number, optional): Max results (default: 10)
Node.js 18+
ClawBoard API key
MIT
Get detailed information about a specific task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The ID of the task to retrieve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Get detailed information' but does not disclose what fields are included, any side effects (like read-only), or performance characteristics. The term 'detailed' is vague.
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?
Single sentence is concise and to the point, but could be front-loaded more with essential info. Not overly verbose.
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?
No output schema, and description fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., status, comments, attachments). For a retrieval tool, this is a significant gap.
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% for the single parameter, so description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific task'), and uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like clawboard_list_tasks (list) and clawboard_search_tasks (search).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use get_task vs list_tasks or search_tasks is not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List tasks on ClawBoard with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tasks to return (default: 20) | |
| status | No | Filter by status: open, completed, or all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list tasks' implying a read operation, but fails to disclose pagination, default behavior (limit=20 is in schema but not described), ordering, or access restrictions.
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 sentence, no filler. However, it is too brief and could benefit from a bit more context without losing conciseness.
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 2 simple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain pagination, ordering, or response structure, leaving gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 described (limit: max number, default 20; status: filter by status with enum). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'optional filtering', so baseline 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 states a clear verb ('list'), resource ('tasks on ClawBoard'), and mentions optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like clawboard_get_task (single task) and clawboard_search_tasks (more complex search), though not explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clawboard_search_tasks for advanced queries, clawboard_get_task for a specific task). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Post a comment on a task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The ID of the task to comment on | |
| comment | Yes | The comment text (markdown supported) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Post a comment' without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool, more transparency is expected.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with two parameters.
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?
No annotations or output schema exist, and the description is minimal. It lacks details about return values or confirmation, making it only minimally complete for a simple post operation.
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%, with both parameters already well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 'Post a comment on a task' uses a specific verb (post) and resource (comment on a task), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get/list/search/upvote 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search tasks by keyword
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No | Maximum results (default: 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool searches tasks, but omits behavioral traits like case sensitivity, search scope (e.g., what fields are searched), sort order, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a search 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 sentence of five words, containing no filler or redundancy. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core action.
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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return format, pagination, result ordering, or which task fields are searched. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.
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 'Search tasks by keyword' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (tasks), and adds 'by keyword' to specify the modality. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like clawboard_list_tasks or clawboard_get_task, which may also involve searching. Still, it is more specific than a tautology.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clawboard_list_tasks or clawboard_get_task. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of guidance leaves the agent uncertain about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Upvote a task to show interest
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The ID of the task to upvote |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens on duplicate upvotes.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, and does not indicate return value or side effects.
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% and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.
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 (upvote) and the resource (task), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, list, comment, and search.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0clawboard_get_taskclawboard_list_tasksclawboard_post_commentclawboard_search_tasksclawboard_upvote_taskScored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: retrieving a single task, listing tasks with filtering, posting comments, searching by keyword, and upvoting. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_task, list_tasks), with a uniform 'clawboard_' prefix. No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
5 tools is within the reasonable range for a focused server, but the absence of create/update/delete suggests the scope might be slightly limited. Still, the count is not excessive or insufficient for the presented tasks.
Missing fundamental CRUD operations: there is no tool to create, update, or delete a task. Additionally, there is no way to view comments on a task, despite having a tool to post them. These gaps hinder basic workflows.
Task & board management for AI agents + humans. Kanban, comments, digests via MCP.
The shared task board your autonomous agent fleet can read and write.
Task management for people and AI agents, with scoped OAuth access to issues, projects, and docs.
AI-native task management: list, create, update and archive tasks with rich context for AI agents
