Trello MCP Server

Delete Checklist Item

delete_checklist_item

Delete a specific item from a Trello checklist using its checklist and item IDs, removing outdated or incorrect tasks to keep the checklist accurate.

Instructions

Delete an item from a checklist.

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": {
      "checklistId": "<checklistId>",
      "checkItemId": "<checkItemId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_checklist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checkItemId`	Yes	The ID of the check item to delete
`checklistId`	Yes	The ID of the checklist

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 only says 'Delete' without disclosing whether the deletion is permanent, whether it has side effects, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler or redundant information. The action is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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?

This is a simple tool with two well-documented required parameters and no output schema. The description is minimally viable for invoking the tool, but it lacks behavioral context such as return values, irreversibility, or idempotency. Given the absence of annotations, the description is only adequate, 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%, and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('an item from a checklist'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_checklist (which removes an entire checklist). It is direct and not a tautology.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_checklist_item or delete_checklist. It does not mention context, preconditions, or exclusions, so the agent must rely on the name alone.

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

Deploy Server