Skip to main content
Glama

vizcom_list_boards

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the last 20 recently viewed boards for an organization to help users find and revisit active design work.

Instructions

List the last 20 recently viewed boards in the organization.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>"
    },
    "name": "vizcom_list_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organizationIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context beyond them: results are capped at 20 and ordered by recency. It leaves ambiguous whose viewing history is used (caller vs. whole organization) and whether any pagination or cursor exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the result cap. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no nesting), and annotations plus the description cover the safety and scoping profile. With no output schema, however, the definition says nothing about the shape of the returned boards (ids, names, timestamps) or their ordering guarantees, which an agent needs to plan follow-up calls.

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 0% for the single organizationId parameter, so the description must carry the meaning; 'in the organization' does tie the parameter to an org scope, but it does not explain the UUID identifier itself or confirm the value must be a valid organization UUID. Partial compensation only.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List ... boards') plus concrete scope ('last 20 recently viewed ... in the organization'), which clearly separates it from siblings like vizcom_read_board (single board) or vizcom_generate_board (creation). It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource and recency qualifier make the intent unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: a discovery/browsing call for recent activity. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer vizcom_read_board once a board is known, and no note on what to do if the needed board is older than the 20-item window.

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