Add a label to a task on a KanbanFlow board. Specify the board name, task ID, and label name to organize and categorize tasks.
Add a label to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| pinned | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| board_name | Yes | Name of the configured board to operate on (see list_boards) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add a label' implies a mutation, but the description does not state permissions needed, whether the label is created or merely attached, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on duplicate labels. It provides zero behavioral context for a write operation.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is arguably too terse given the complexity of the operation.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage context, leaving the agent with significant gaps before invocation.
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 only 25% (only board_name is documented). The description does not explain the 'name' parameter (is it an existing label name or a new label to create?), 'pinned', or 'task_id'. With low coverage and no compensating detail, the description leaves key parameters ambiguous.
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?
States a clear verb+resource: 'Add a label to a task.' It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_labels (retrieval) and create_task. It lacks scope details (e.g., which board, whether it creates a new label or applies an existing one) but the core action is unmistakable.
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 like get_labels or update_task. It does not clarify whether this creates a new label definition or attaches an existing label to a task. With no exclusions or context, the agent must infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.