Delete a column from a Favro board, permanently removing all cards within it. Specify column by ID or name.
Delete a column from a board.
Warning: This will also delete all cards in the column!
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | No | Board ID or name (required for name lookup) | |
| column | Yes | Column ID or name |
| 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 (required for name lookup)"Input schema / properties / column / descriptionAdded value: +"Column ID or name"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explicitly warns that deleting a column also deletes all cards in it, which is critical behavioral context not inferable from the name. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility or permission requirements, so it's not fully comprehensive.
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 sentences front-load the purpose and then the important warning. No superfluous content, and the structure is efficient.
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?
Covers the key destructive side effect, which is essential for an agent to understand the consequences. Lacks note about irreversibility or confirmation steps, but given the output schema exists and the warning is clear, it's fairly complete for a destructive action.
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 already describes both parameters with meanings (board/column ID or name), including the note that board is required for name lookup. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 the exact action (delete) and resource (column from a board). This clearly differentiates from siblings like rename_column and move_column, and the warning about cards makes the scope unmistakable.
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 tool versus alternatives like delete_card or archive column. No mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's note on name lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.