get_current_boardRetrieve details of the currently selected Favro board, or a notice if none is chosen. Use it to confirm the active board before managing columns, cards, or settings.
Get details of the currently selected board.
Returns: The board details or a message if none is selected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2v0.7.0v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool may return 'a message if none is selected', which is useful non-obvious behavior. However it does not state whether this requires an active session/auth, whether it mutates anything, or any other operational constraint.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the edge case in a separate 'Returns' block. No wasted words, though the 'Returns' framing is slightly redundant given an output schema exists.
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-value detail is unnecessary, and for a zero-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient. It does leave a small gap by not clarifying the relationship to get_board, the most likely alternative for the same task.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document and it correctly adds no parameter noise.
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 and resource ('Get details of the currently selected board'), and the word 'currently selected' distinguishes it from get_board and list_boards. However, the distinction from get_board is left implicit; the agent must infer that this one requires no id and operates on session state.
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?
Usage is implied by 'currently selected' but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus get_board (which presumably needs a board id) or list_boards. The alternative is adjacent in the sibling list but not named, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.