Atlassian Trello MCP Server

trello_update_checklist

Update a checklist's name or position on Trello by specifying the checklist ID along with optional new name or position.

Instructions

Update a checklist name or position.

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_update_checklist"
  }
}

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)
`checklistId`	Yes	ID of the checklist to update
`name`	No	New name for the checklist
`pos`	No	New position

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or whether the update is partial or full. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing parameters clearly) but remains effective.

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?

Given the presence of a closely related sibling tool (trello_update_checklist_field), the description should clarify the difference (e.g., batch update vs single field). It also lacks any mention of return values or behavior when parameters are omitted, making it incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating 'name' and 'position'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'checklist', and specifies what can be updated (name or position). This distinguishes it from create/delete siblings, but does not differentiate from the similar trello_update_checklist_field tool.

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 like trello_update_checklist_field. The description offers no context about prerequisites, constraints, or preferred usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server