jira_board_configFetch Jira board column and status configuration by board ID to map workflow stages and statuses.
Get board column/status configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | Board ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note about output shape, pagination, or what 'configuration' entails (columns, statuses, mappings).
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, and the key resource term is front-loaded. It could carry one more clause of useful context without bloat, but there is zero waste.
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 output schema, an agent still lacks any sense of what the returned configuration looks like, but the read-only annotations and complete param schema cover the call mechanics. Adequate but thin for a config-retrieval tool.
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% with board_id documented as 'Board ID', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Get) and resource (board column/status configuration), which is more precise than the generic name. It is distinguishable from jira_get_board, though it never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling. Clear but without sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_get_board or jira_list_fields. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'board column/status configuration'. No prerequisites or exclusions are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.