Atlassian Trello MCP Server

trello_get_board_labels

Retrieve all labels from a specified Trello board to categorize cards effectively.

Instructions

Get all labels available on a specific Trello board for categorizing cards.

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>"
    },
    "name": "trello_get_board_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	No	Trello API key (optional if TRELLO_API_KEY env var is set)
`token`	No	Trello API token (optional if TRELLO_TOKEN env var is set)
`boardId`	Yes	ID or URL of the board (e.g. "abc123" or "https://trello.com/b/abc123/board-name")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of detail on authentication requirements (beyond schema) or constraints is a gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and is free of unnecessary words. Every part of the description is essential.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple retrieval tool, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. However, given the absence of an output schema, briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., 'returns an array of label objects with id, name, color, etc.') would make it more complete. The sibling context is large but not conflicting.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., no guidance on how to obtain the boardId or typical usage patterns. Baseline 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'), the resource ('all labels on a specific Trello board'), and the purpose ('for categorizing cards'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like trello_create_label or trello_update_label by focusing on retrieval.

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 usage for obtaining labels before applying them to cards, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trello_get_board_cards for card-specific labels). No when-not-to-use context is given.

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

Deploy Server