get_card_detailsRetrieve detailed information for a specific Favro card using its ID, sequential number, or name; include a board when looking up by name.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about permissions, whether the card must exist, or what happens on a miss. 'Detailed information' is the only hint about return scope, and the output schema covers the rest.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient but perhaps overly terse for a tool with lookup-mode nuances.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully documented. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves the agent to infer that this is a safe read and when to prefer it over list_cards.
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 both parameters (card and board) are already documented in the schema, including the note that board is needed for name lookups. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.
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 (card details), and 'specific card' implies single-item retrieval rather than listing. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list_cards or get_board, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 versus list_cards (to browse) or update_card (to modify). The description simply restates the operation without context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.