Favro MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tag_card

Add or remove a tag from a card in Favro using its ID, sequential number, or name, with optional board context for name lookups.

Instructions

Add or remove a tag from a card.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.3.2May 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / board / description
```
Added value: +"Board ID or name (needed for name lookups)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / card / description
```
Added value: +"Card ID, sequential ID (#123), or name"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / remove / description
```
Added value: +"If True, remove the tag instead of adding"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / tag / description
```
Added value: +"Tag ID or name"
```
First observedv0.5.0Feb 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (add/remove via the 'remove' parameter), but does not reveal potential side effects, required permissions, or limitations. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise, one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear. However, it could be slightly expanded for completeness without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 100% schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks nuance about edge cases (e.g., tag already present, non-existent tag). Adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's action. No extra context for parameters is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (add or remove) and the resource (tag from a card). It is specific, but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'assign_card' which could also modify card attributes. No explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only states the action without any usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.