Retrieve all column names for a specified Favro board by providing its ID, name, or widget_common_id. Quickly understand the board's workflow structure.
List all columns on a specific board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | Yes | The board's widget_common_id, name, or ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / board / descriptionAdded value: +"The board's widget_common_id, name, or ID"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the operation is read-only but lacks details on pagination, sorting, authentication, error handling, or response format beyond what the output schema may provide.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. It is concise but not overly brief, though it could benefit from expanding on context.
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 25 sibling tools and the absence of annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how this tool fits into a workflow, what the output represents (despite having an output schema), or any behavioral constraints.
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% with the parameter description 'The board's widget_common_id, name, or ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'columns' with scope 'on a specific board', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_column, delete_column, and list_cards.
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 versus alternatives like list_cards or get_board. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.