Trello MCP Server

Update Checklist

update_checklist

Rename a Trello checklist or reposition it to the top, bottom, or a specific location.

Instructions

Update a checklist's name or position.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pos`	No	New position
`name`	No	New name for the checklist
`checklistId`	Yes	The ID of the checklist

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms mutation and implies partial-update semantics by listing 'name or position' as independently updatable, but it does not clarify position semantics (what 'top'/'bottom' are relative to), error conditions, permissions needed, or what the tool returns.

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-loaded with the action and resource. For a tool this simple with fully documented parameters, the brevity is appropriate rather than under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain return values, position semantics, or prerequisite/error behavior. The agent must infer the expected behavior of the pos parameter and the outcome of the update from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (checklistId, name, pos). The description's 'name or position' loosely maps to the name and pos properties but adds no format, constraints, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('a checklist'), and a concrete scope ('name or position'). The field scope helps distinguish it from update_checklist_item, which operates on item-level attributes, but the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_checklist, get_checklist, delete_checklist, or update_checklist_item. There are no mention of conditions, exclusions, or sequencing (e.g., checklist must exist first).

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

Deploy Server