Trello MCP Server

bulk_archive_cards

Archive multiple Trello cards in one batch operation with built-in rate limiting to avoid API issues.

Instructions

Archive plusieurs cartes en une fois (batch processing avec rate limiting)

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": {
      "cardIds": "<cardIds>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_archive_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cardIds`	Yes	Parameter cardIds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'rate limiting' as a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether archiving is reversible, how partial failures are handled, what happens when rate limits are hit, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating batch operation.

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 that conveys the core operation and adds a relevant note about rate limiting. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 with one parameter, and the description states the operation and batch nature. But because there are no annotations and no output schema, missing details about return behavior, error handling, and rate-limit behavior leave the description only minimally viable.

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?

The schema only describes cardIds as 'Parameter cardIds', which is uninformative. The tool description adds that these are cards to be archived, but it does not specify the item type, expected ID format, or limits on batch size. With schema coverage marked at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Archive plusieurs cartes en une fois' clearly states that this tool archives multiple cards in one batch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like archive_card (single-card archive) and delete_card (deletion rather than archiving).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'plusieurs cartes en une fois' and 'batch processing' clearly imply this tool is for archiving multiple cards at once, contrasting with single-card archive_card. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server