Re-fetch configured KanbanFlow boards and update stored board IDs when they change. Omit board_name to sync all boards; specify one board to sync only it.
Re-fetch one (or all, if board_name omitted) configured board(s) from KanbanFlow and update the stored board ID if it changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_name | No | Board to sync; omit to sync all configured boards |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a conditional write ('update the stored board ID if it changed'), implying local config mutation, but says nothing about required permissions/auth, failure behavior, or whether remote KanbanFlow state is touched.
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 well-formed sentence with the action first and the conditional parameter behavior parenthetically embedded. No filler and nothing redundant.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but omits what happens on failure, whether anything is returned (e.g., updated IDs), and any permission requirements that an agent would need for safe 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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'omit to sync all configured boards'. The description repeats the same omit-means-all semantics, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 (re-fetch/update) and a precise resource (stored KanbanFlow board ID), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_boards, add_board, or remove_board. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which siblings it is not for.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader infers the tool is run when stored board IDs may have drifted. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative tools (add_board, list_boards) that an agent should prefer for other board operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.