add_list_to_boardCreate a new list on a specified Trello board by providing its name; optionally target a board ID, otherwise the default board is used.
Add a new list to the specified board
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the new list | |
| boardId | No | ID of the Trello board (uses default if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies a mutation ('Add a new list') but says nothing about permissions, side effects, error behavior, or what the operation returns. The only behavioral hint is in the schema's boardId description, not the tool description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be lengthened slightly to carry more behavioral context without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations to cover safety or side effects, it leaves gaps around permissions, failure modes, and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented. The tool description adds no parameter detail beyond 'specified board,' so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new list to the specified board.' It is clear and unambiguous on its own, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as create_board or get_lists, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.