tag_cardAdd or remove a tag from a Favro card. Specify the card and tag, and set remove to true to detach it.
Add or remove a tag from a card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | Tag ID or name | |
| card | Yes | Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name | |
| board | No | Board ID or name (needed for name lookups) | |
| remove | No | If True, remove the tag instead of adding |
| 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 (needed for name lookups)"Input schema / properties / card / descriptionAdded value: +"Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name"Input schema / properties / remove / descriptionAdded value: +"If True, remove the tag instead of adding"Input schema / properties / tag / descriptionAdded value: +"Tag ID or name"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. It implies a mutation (tag added/removed) but says nothing about permissions required, idempotency, whether removal errors if the tag is absent, or side effects. The dual add/remove behavior is a useful signal but far from complete for a mutation tool.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits context rather than being concise by design.
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 explained, but the tool is a mutation with zero annotation coverage and no description of permissions, error behavior, or name-vs-ID lookup implications. For a write tool the description leaves meaningful gaps.
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 all four parameters (tag, card, board, remove) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of add vs remove loosely maps to the 'remove' flag but adds no syntax, format, or lookup 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 pair and resource: add or remove a tag from a card. An agent immediately knows what the tool manipulates, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_tags or explain how it relates to card-mutation tools like update_card.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the tag/card must already exist, or that board is needed for name lookups). The add/remove duality is only discoverable by reading the schema's 'remove' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.