Trello MCP Server

Update Label

update_label

Modify a Trello label's name or color to reflect project changes, ensuring board organization stays accurate.

Instructions

Update a label's name or color.

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": {
      "labelId": "<labelId>"
    },
    "name": "update_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the label
`color`	No	New color (or null to remove color)
`labelId`	Yes	The ID of the label

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a label's name or color', with no mention of whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether the update is partial, what the response looks like, or any permissions/validation requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the affected resource, and what can be updated.

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 and the schema covers all parameters, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, making it minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents labelId, name, and color. The description mentions 'name or color' but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a label'), and specifies exactly what can be changed: name or color. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_label, get_label, and delete_label.

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?

The description implies this tool is for modifying an existing label's name or color, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of create_label or delete_label. There are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server