move_columnReposition a Favro board column to a specified 0-based index, optionally identifying the board by ID or name.
Move a column to a new position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | No | Board ID or name (required for name lookup) | |
| column | Yes | Column ID or name | |
| position | Yes | New position index (0-based) |
| 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 (required for name lookup)"Input schema / properties / column / descriptionAdded value: +"Column ID or name"Input schema / properties / position / descriptionAdded value: +"New position index (0-based)"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 behavioral burden. 'Move' implies a mutation, but it says nothing about permissions, whether other columns are shifted, how out-of-range positions are handled, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a title-like action, though its brevity is also the source of the contextual gaps noted elsewhere.
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 no annotations, a mutation tool, three parameters, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the board/column-name dependency, the effect on sibling column positions, and any error or permission context an agent needs before calling it.
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 each parameter (board, column, position) is already documented with type and meaning. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; 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?
States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('column') plus the intended effect ('to a new position'). The resource is distinct from all siblings (no other move-column tool exists), so an agent can identify it unambiguously, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with rename_column/delete_column.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The description never mentions that the optional 'board' parameter is required when specifying a column by name, which is the main selection/routing nuance for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.