Atlassian Trello MCP Server

trello_update_checklist_field

Update the name or position of a Trello checklist by specifying the checklist ID, field, and new value.

Instructions

Update a specific field (name or pos) on a checklist.

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>",
      "field": "<field>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "trello_update_checklist_field"
  }
}

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
`field`	Yes	Field to update
`value`	Yes	New value for the field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description indicates a write operation ('update'), which is appropriate. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. Basic transparency is present.

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?

The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the action. It is appropriately concise but could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information on return values or success indicators, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond listing the fields; it does not elaborate on format constraints or usage nuances, hence baseline score.

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 tool updates a specific field on a checklist and explicitly lists the allowed fields (name or pos). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trello_update_checklist' and 'trello_get_checklist_field' by specifying the action and scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'trello_update_check_item' or 'trello_update_checklist'. The description lacks exclusion or context for selection.

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

Deploy Server