Trello MCP Server

update_card_details

Update a Trello card's name, description, due date, and labels using its card ID and optional board ID.

Instructions

Update an existing card's details on a specific board

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": {
      "cardId": "<cardId>"
    },
    "name": "update_card_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`boardId`	No	ID of the Trello board (uses default if not provided)
`cardId`	Yes	ID of the card to update
`name`	No	New name for the card
`description`	No	New description for the card
`dueDate`	No	New due date for the card (ISO 8601 format)
`labels`	No	New array of label IDs for the card

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4May 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Given no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely implies mutation but does not specify permissions, reversibility, side effects, or whether updates are partial. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Very concise (one sentence) but lacks important details. It is not wasteful, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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?

With 6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It fails to explain behavior like partial updates, error handling, or required context.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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'), the resource ('an existing card's details'), and context ('on a specific board'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'move_card' or 'update_label'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. Does not mention prerequisites or conditions for updating.

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