Add a new column with specified status keys to a Yandex Tracker board; provide board ID, name, statuses, and current board version to satisfy the If-Match lock.
Create a column on a board. version = current board version (If-Match lock; get it from get_board).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| boardId | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | Current board version | |
| statuses | Yes | Status keys shown in the column |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: the version field drives an If-Match lock and must be sourced from get_board, which hints at optimistic concurrency behavior.
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?
Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious prerequisite. No filler, every clause earns its place.
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 four-required-parameter create mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations and schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it. Minor gaps remain on column semantics (ordering, statuses meaning), but nothing critical is missing.
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 50% (version and statuses documented). The description uniquely clarifies the version parameter's role as an If-Match lock and tells the agent where to obtain it, adding meaning the schema's terse 'Current board version' does not. name and boardId remain undocumented but are self-evident.
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 specific verb and resource ('Create a column on a board'), which cleanly separates it from create_board, update_board_column and get_board_column. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
It gives one concrete prerequisite for the version parameter (get it from get_board), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no when/when-not guidance against alternatives like update_board_column or create_board, and no note on when to use this versus other column operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.