Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
andypost

Trello MCP Server

by andypost
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Trello MCP 서버(TypeScript)

Trello 통합을 위한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버의 TypeScript 구현으로, AI 어시스턴트가 Trello 보드, 목록 및 카드와 상호 작용할 수 있는 도구를 제공합니다.

특징

  • MCP 도구를 통한 전체 Trello API 통합

  • 더 나은 성능을 위한 비동기 작업

  • TypeScript를 사용한 유형 안전 구현

  • 포괄적인 오류 처리

  • 환경 기반 구성

Related MCP server: MCP Trello

필수 조건

  • Node.js 18.x 이상

  • npm 또는 yarn

  • Trello API 자격 증명

설치

지엑스피1

구성

Trello 자격 증명을 사용하여 루트 디렉토리에 .env 파일을 만듭니다.

TRELLO_API_KEY=your_api_key
TRELLO_TOKEN=your_token

사용 가능한 명령

# Install dependencies
make install

# Build the project
make build

# Start the server
make start

# Clean build artifacts
make clean

# Run linter
make lint

MCP 도구

get_boards

인증된 사용자에 대한 모든 Trello 보드를 검색합니다.

// No input parameters required

get_lists

지정된 보드에서 모든 목록을 가져옵니다.

{
  "request": {
    "board_id": string // ID of the board
  }
}

카드를 받으세요

보드나 특정 목록에서 카드를 가져옵니다.

{
  "request": {
    "board_id": string,    // ID of the board
    "list_id"?: string     // Optional: ID of a specific list
  }
}

카드 세부 정보 받기

특정 카드에 대한 자세한 정보를 검색합니다.

{
  "request": {
    "card_id": string      // ID of the card
  }
}

개발

이 프로젝트는 타입 안전성과 더 나은 개발자 경험을 위해 TypeScript를 사용합니다. 소스 코드는 다음과 같이 구성되어 있습니다.

  • src/index.ts - 메인 서버 진입점

  • src/trello-client.ts - Trello API 클라이언트 구현

  • src/types.ts - TypeScript 유형 정의

건물

이 프로젝트는 다음을 빌드하기 위해 TypeScript 컴파일러를 사용합니다.

# Build the project
make build

# The output will be in the build/ directory

오류 처리

서버는 다음에 대한 포괄적인 오류 처리를 구현합니다.

  • API 인증 오류

  • 속도 제한

  • 네트워크 문제

  • 잘못된 요청 매개변수

기여하다

  1. 저장소를 포크하세요

  2. 기능 브랜치를 생성합니다( git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature )

  3. 변경 사항을 커밋하세요( git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature' )

  4. 브랜치에 푸시( git push origin feature/amazing-feature )

  5. 풀 리퀘스트 열기

Cline과 함께 사용

Cline과 함께 이 MCP 서버를 사용하려면 다음 구성을 Cline MCP 설정 파일( ~/.config/Code/User/globalStorage/saoudrizwan.claude-dev/settings/cline_mcp_settings.json )에 추가하세요.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "trello-ts": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/mcp-server-ts-trello/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "TRELLO_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
        "TRELLO_TOKEN": "your_token"
      }
    }
  }
}

구성을 추가하고 Cline을 다시 시작하면 다음 MCP 도구를 사용할 수 있습니다.

  • get_boards : 모든 Trello 보드 나열

  • get_lists : 보드에서 목록 가져오기

  • get_cards : 보드나 목록에서 카드를 가져옵니다.

  • get_card_details : 자세한 카드 정보를 가져옵니다

특허

ISC 라이센스 - 자세한 내용은 라이센스 파일을 참조하세요.

Available Tools

5 tools
get_boardsB

Get all boards for the authenticated user

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves boards without detailing behavior. It lacks information on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all boards' entails (e.g., archived ones). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., board structure), authentication needs, or potential limitations, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, but since there are none, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't miss anything required.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all boards'), specifying it's for the authenticated user. It distinguishes from siblings like get_card_details and get_cards by focusing on boards rather than cards or lists, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_card.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), compare with get_lists for list retrieval, or specify scenarios where boards vs. cards are needed, leaving usage context unclear.

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

get_card_detailsC

Get detailed information about a specific card

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves too much uncertainty for reliable agent use.

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 description implies a 'card_id' is needed ('about a specific card'), which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the parameter name. It doesn't explain format, validation, or sourcing of the ID.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific card'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cards' (which might list multiple cards) or 'get_boards'/'get_lists', leaving some ambiguity about 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_cards' or 'update_card'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a card ID) or contextual factors, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

get_cardsC

Get cards from a board or specific list

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get cards' without any details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity, as it fails to describe how the tool behaves beyond the basic 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, efficient sentence: 'Get cards from a board or specific list'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words. This makes it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, response handling, or error conditions, and it lacks differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns multiple items, more context on output and usage is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter (a nested object with 'board_id' and optional 'list_id'), but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'board or specific list', which hints at the parameters but does not explain their semantics, formats, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get cards from a board or specific list', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resources 'cards', but lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all cards, filtered cards) and does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_card_details' or 'get_lists'. This makes it minimally adequate but with gaps in differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer 'get_cards' over 'get_card_details' for detailed card info or 'get_lists' for list-level operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

get_listsC

Get all lists in a board

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' lists, implying a read operation, but doesn't mention any constraints like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if the board_id is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about behavior, parameters, or output to adequately guide an AI agent, especially for a tool that interacts with a board system where details like permissions or data format matter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, with only one parameter 'board_id' documented in the schema without any description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by 'in a board', failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't explain what format board_id should be in or where to find it.

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 'Get' and resource 'all lists in a board', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_boards' or 'get_cards', but it's specific enough to understand what resource is being retrieved.

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 like 'get_boards' or 'get_cards'. The description only states what it does without context about when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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

update_cardC

Update properties of a specific card

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. It lacks context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning its place as concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity as a mutation with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what properties can be updated, the response format, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'properties of a specific card,' which hints at parameters but doesn't detail card_id or update_data. With 1 parameter (a nested object) and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Update properties of a specific card' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('specific card'), but it's vague about what properties can be updated and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_card_details or get_cards. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a card_id from get_cards or get_card_details, or clarify that this is for modifications while siblings are for retrieval. It offers no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedget_boards
    • First observedget_card_details
    • First observedget_cards
    • First observedget_lists
    • First observedupdate_card
Deploy Server
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Trello resources: get_boards (boards), get_lists (lists), get_cards (cards in board/list), get_card_details (specific card details), and update_card (modify card). No ambiguity or overlap exists between these operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_boards, get_card_details, get_cards, get_lists, update_card. The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

Tool Count4/5

Five tools is reasonable for a Trello server, covering core read operations and one update. It's slightly under-scoped as it lacks create/delete operations for boards, lists, or cards, but the count itself is appropriate for the provided functionality.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers read operations well (boards, lists, cards, card details) and one update (card), but there are notable gaps: no create or delete tools for any resources (boards, lists, cards), and missing operations like moving cards between lists or managing members. This limits full lifecycle management.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Claude MCP Trello

    hrs-asano
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that provides tools for interacting with Trello boards, enabling seamless management of cards, lists, and activities while handling rate limiting and type safety.
    35
    MIT

  • MCP Trello

    Hint-Services
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables interaction with Trello boards through comprehensive card, list, and board management tools. Includes built-in rate limiting, type safety, and support for operations like creating cards, updating details, managing members, and tracking board activity.
    121 npm
    10
    MIT

  • Trello MCP Server

    Adise211
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides AI assistants with access to Trello's functionality. This server enables AI models to interact with Trello boards, lists, and cards programmatically.
    135 npm
    1
    ISC

Appeared in Searches