create_columnAdd a new column to a Favro board, optionally specifying the board and position. Helps organize tasks into stages.
Create a new column on a board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Column name | |
| board | No | Board ID or name (uses current board if not specified) | |
| position | No | Position index (0-based), appends to end if not specified |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2v0.7.0v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / board / descriptionAdded value: +"Board ID or name (uses current board if not specified)"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Column name"Input schema / properties / position / descriptionAdded value: +"Position index (0-based), appends to end if not specified"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether the column is appended by default, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on name collisions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, with no annotations and a thin description, the agent gets no safety, permission, or side-effect context that a create operation warrants.
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%, with each of name, board, and position documented including defaults and fallback behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 ('Create a new column') plus the scope ('on a board'), which distinguishes it from rename_column, move_column, and delete_column. It stops short of naming those siblings or explaining how creation differs from them, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rename_column, move_column, or list_columns, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a board context or existing column names to avoid duplicates. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.