Assign a new value to a specific cell in an item using project, board, item, and column identifiers.
Set a single cell value on an item by columnId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | The new cell value; shape depends on the column type | |
| itemId | Yes | Item (row) id | |
| boardId | Yes | Board id (from list_boards / create_board) | |
| columnId | Yes | Column id (from get_board_schema) | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from list_projects / create_project) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / boardId / descriptionAdded value: +"Board id (from list_boards / create_board)"Input schema / properties / columnId / descriptionAdded value: +"Column id (from get_board_schema)"Input schema / properties / itemId / descriptionAdded value: +"Item (row) id"Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionAdded value: +"Project id (from list_projects / create_project)"v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description implies mutation but does not elaborate on overwriting behavior, validation, or return values.
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, clear, and direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.
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?
Invocation details are complete: all required parameters are explained, and references to get_board_schema help the agent determine value shapes. No output schema is provided, so return-value documentation is not required.
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?
All five parameters are described, with helpful provenance for IDs (e.g., boardId from list_boards/create_board, columnId from get_board_schema). The value parameter notes that its shape depends on the column type.
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 defines the operation: 'Set a single cell value on an item by columnId.' It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like update_item, which implies broader updates.
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 is provided on when to choose this over alternatives such as update_item. The intended use is only inferred from the purpose, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.