Fetch detailed card information from Favro using its ID, sequential number, or name. Specify board when searching by name for accurate results.
Get detailed information about a specific card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name | |
| board | No | Board ID or name (needed for name lookups) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / board / descriptionAdded value: +"Board ID or name (needed for name lookups)"Input schema / properties / card / descriptionAdded value: +"Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but 'get' implies a read operation. Output schema exists, so return value details are covered. No additional behavioral traits disclosed.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no unnecessary words; front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
Given output schema existence and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention the board requirement for name lookups.
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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions; description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states it gets detailed information about a specific card, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_cards (list all) or create_card.
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 vs alternatives; no mention of prerequisites or exclusions beyond what the schema implies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.