Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Atlassian Trello MCP Server

Atlassian Trello MCP Server

by agrath
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

trello_get_board_for_checklist

Get the board that a checklist belongs to by providing the checklist ID.

Instructions

Get the board that a checklist belongs to.

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": "trello_get_board_for_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyNoTrello API key (optional if TRELLO_API_KEY env var is set)
tokenNoTrello API token (optional if TRELLO_TOKEN env var is set)
checklistIdYesID of the checklist

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 states a simple read operation, which is transparent, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a straightforward getter, this is minimally adequate.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. However, it could be improved by mentioning what board details are returned (e.g., board ID, name) to fully set expectations.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the board that a checklist belongs to'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like trello_get_card_for_checklist and trello_get_checklist.

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 using this tool when you have a checklist ID and need the parent board, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools