delete_columnRemove a column from a Favro board. This also deletes all cards in that column, so use it to clean up unused columns or restructure boards.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical cascading effect: deleting the column also deletes all its cards. That is the most important non-obvious behavior. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permissions, or whether the deletion can be undone.
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, zero waste, with the destructive warning isolated and emphasized rather than buried. Front-loaded purpose followed by the risk is the right ordering for a delete 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?
Return values are covered by the output schema and parameters by the schema, so the remaining burden is behavioral. The cascade warning covers the main risk; only permissions and reversibility are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a straightforward delete.
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%, so both 'board' and 'column' are already documented, including the name-lookup requirement for board. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (column from a board) in one crisp sentence. The resource is naturally distinct from the other destructive sibling (delete_card), so an agent can select correctly without opening either schema.
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 versus rename_column, move_column, or delete_card, and no prerequisites (e.g., board resolution for name lookup). The description only states the operation, not the selection conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.