Favro MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_card

Add a new card to Favro specifying board, column, lane, assignees, tags, and description to manage tasks directly from the MCP server.

Instructions

Create a new card.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lane`	No	Lane (swimlane) ID or name to place the card in. Only applies to boards with lanes enabled; use list_lanes to see available lanes.
`name`	Yes	Card name/title
`tags`	No	List of tag IDs or names to add
`board`	No	Board ID or name (uses current board if not specified)
`column`	No	Column ID or name to place the card in
`assignees`	No	List of user IDs, names, or emails to assign
`description`	No	Detailed description. Favro supports a subset of Markdown: bold, italic, ~~strikethrough~~, `inline code`, ```code blocks```, [links](url), bullet lists, numbered lists, headings (# and ## only), and horizontal rules (---). Do not use tables, images, blockquotes, checkbox lists, or heading levels beyond ## — unsupported syntax causes the entire description to be stored as plain text. For checklists, use tasklists instead (see update_card's add_tasklist and add_task parameters).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Jul 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / lane

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Lane (swimlane) ID or name to place the card in. Only applies to\nboards with lanes enabled; use list_lanes to see available lanes."
+}

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.2May 1, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / assignees / description

Added value: +"List of user IDs, names, or emails to assign"

addedInput schema / properties / board / description

Added value: +"Board ID or name (uses current board if not specified)"

addedInput schema / properties / column / description

Added value: +"Column ID or name to place the card in"

addedInput schema / properties / description / description

Added value: +"Detailed description. Favro supports a subset of Markdown:\n**bold**, *italic*, ~~strikethrough~~, `inline code`, ```code blocks```,\n[links](url), bullet lists, numbered lists, headings (# and ##\nonly), and horizontal rules (---). Do not use tables, images,\nblockquotes, checkbox lists, or heading levels beyond ## —\nunsupported syntax causes the entire description to be stored as\nplain text. For checklists, use tasklists instead (see update_card's\nadd_tasklist and add_task parameters)."

addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"Card name/title"
```
addedInput schema / properties / tags / description
```
Added value: +"List of tag IDs or names to add"
```

First observedv0.5.0Feb 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Create a new card.' It omits whether the operation is idempotent, permission requirements, or side effects like overwriting. The agent receives no behavioral insights beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at three words, but this under-specification sacrifices completeness. Important context about parameters and behavior is missing, making it insufficiently structured for effective use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists) and lack of annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. No mention of return values, error handling, or operational scope, leaving the agent with inadequate information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed parameter meanings. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new card,' specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_card, though the name itself provides distinction. A moderate score reflects clarity but lack of additional distinguishing context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_card or assign_card. The description lacks context for usage, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.