get_boardRetrieve a specific board's details, including its columns, by board ID. Use this to inspect board structure and column layout.
Get details of a specific board including its columns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | The board's widget_common_id |
| 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_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The board's widget_common_id"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. It mentions columns are included but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, latency, or error behavior. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero waste.
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?
With one parameter fully documented and an output schema present, the tool is callable. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent lacks context for when to choose this over get_current_board or list_boards.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents board_id as a widget_common_id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what's in 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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (board) with scope ('including its columns'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_current_board or list_boards, though the requirement of a board_id makes its identity reasonably clear.
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 get_current_board or list_boards. The agent must infer from the required board_id, but no explicit when/when-not is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.