List organization custom fields, filtering by name or type, to identify available metadata options for managing tasks and cards.
List custom fields in the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by name (case-insensitive substring match) | |
| field_type | No | Filter by type (e.g., "Link", "Text", "Rating", "Single select") |
| 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 / field_type / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter by type (e.g., \"Link\", \"Text\", \"Rating\", \"Single select\")"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter by name (case-insensitive substring match)"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. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether results are limited to the current organization. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could briefly mention optional filtering to add value.
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 an output schema exists and two optional parameters, the description is fairly complete for a simple listing tool. However, it doesn't clarify whether filters are combinable, how organization scope is determined, or whether any authentication or permissions are needed. It is adequate but not rich.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name and field_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?
The description states the verb 'List' and the resource 'custom fields' with scope 'in the organization', making the purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_columns or list_lanes because the resource is explicitly named, though it doesn't contrast with them.
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. It doesn't mention that filters are optional or when one might filter by name vs type, nor does it clarify the organizational context (e.g., current organization) which is relevant given siblings like list_organizations and set_organization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.