Retrieve a task's relations (relatesTo, dependsOn, requiredBy) on a KanbanFlow board to identify dependencies and linked tasks.
Get task relations (relatesTo/dependsOn/requiredBy).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or behavior when no relations exist. It does not disclose how the three relation types are structured in the response.
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?
A single, short sentence with the resource and the relation-type enumeration front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.
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?
A no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool with 50% schema coverage and no behavioral or usage context. It is under-specified for an agent to confidently choose it over sibling task-inspection tools.
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%. task_id is undocumented in both schema and description; board_name is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning (e.g., whether task_id must be a full ID format or how board_name interacts with task lookup).
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: 'Get task relations' and enumerates the relation types (relatesTo/dependsOn/requiredBy). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_subtasks or get_collaborators, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 call this versus alternatives. It doesn't say whether relations are a superset of subtasks/dependencies, or when an agent would need this instead of get_task or get_subtasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.