jira_get_boardRetrieve details for a Jira agile board using its board ID to inspect board configuration, columns, and status for agile project tracking.
Get details of a Jira agile board.
| 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 fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond them - no statement of what 'details' are returned, pagination, or permission requirements.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves open what fields the board details contain and how it relates to sibling board tools.
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% for the single board_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the ID, making 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 (Jira agile board), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like jira_board_config or jira_backlog, which an agent must choose between.
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 indication of when to fetch a board versus using jira_board_config or jira_backlog, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.