Fetch tasks from a KanbanFlow board column using a column ID; optionally filter by swimlane ID.
Get tasks filtered by column ID. swimlane_id is optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| column_id | Yes | ||
| board_name | Yes | Name of the configured board to operate on (see list_boards) | |
| swimlane_id | No |
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. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but there is no mention of return shape, pagination, ordering, or behavior when swimlane_id is omitted (all lanes vs none). For a bare read tool this is thin.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. However, the terseness comes at the cost of the missing context a 3-parameter tool needs, so it is efficient rather than fully earned.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage mean the description must compensate, and it does not. An agent cannot tell from this text how the tool relates to the many other task-retrieval siblings or what a call will return.
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 33% (only board_name is documented in the schema). The description adds nothing about column_id format, how board_name interacts with column_id, or what omitting swimlane_id does. It essentially restates the schema's required/optional split.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get tasks') plus the filtering dimension ('filtered by column ID'), so the agent knows what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_all_tasks or get_task, which also retrieve tasks, so the boundary is left to inference.
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 over get_all_tasks, get_task, or get_subtasks. The only usage note is that swimlane_id is optional, which is already implied by the schema's required list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.