list_custom_fieldsRetrieve custom fields in a Favro organization, filtering by name or type to inspect available metadata for cards and boards.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little beyond scope. It does not say whether results are paginated, whether org membership or admin rights are required, or how large the result set can get; only the org-wide scope is 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity means nothing about filtering or result behavior is surfaced.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description still leaves the two filters entirely unmentioned and says nothing about pagination or access requirements, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 optional filters (case-insensitive substring name match, field_type) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no filter syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom fields') plus the scope ('in the organization'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. No sibling in the list overlaps with custom fields, so the lack of explicit sibling differentiation is not a real gap here.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate custom fields, and there is no competing sibling to route away from. However, the description never states when to reach for it, whether it is the right tool to discover field definitions before using them elsewhere, or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.