Retrieve a list of boards, optionally filtered by project. Returns board items with pagination support; limits results to 100 per request.
List boards, optionally narrowed to a project. Returns items plus has_more; limit is capped at 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"list_boardsOutput"New value: +"list_boardsDictOutput"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds extra context: returns structure (items plus has_more) and limit cap at 100, which is useful beyond annotations.
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 that efficiently conveys main purpose, optional filter, return fields, and a constraint. No wasted words.
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?
Given output schema exists, description's mention of 'items plus has_more' is sufficient for pagination context. Could include ordering or error info, but overall adequate for a read-only list tool with simple parameters.
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 0%, but parameter names (limit, offset, project_id) are mostly self-explanatory. Description adds that limit is capped at 100 and project_id narrows to a project, providing some semantics beyond schema.
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?
Description states the verb 'List' and resource 'boards', with optional narrowing to a project. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (lists projects) and get_board (single board).
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 explicit guidance on when to use list_boards vs alternatives. The description implies it for listing boards, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings like get_board for single boards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.