archive_listArchive a Trello list on a specific board by list ID, optionally confirming its board before removing it from active view.
Send a list to the archive on a specific board
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listId | Yes | ID of the list to archive | |
| boardId | No | Board the list is on. If given, a list on any other board is refused |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is a mutating operation. It does not say whether archiving is reversible, what happens to the cards contained in the list, or what permissions are required. One sentence is far too thin 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for the text it contains, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than pure efficiency.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an operation that potentially affects contained cards, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot tell the reversibility or side effects of archiving from this definition.
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%, so the schema already documents both listId and boardId (including the refusal behavior when boardId mismatches). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (archive) and resource (list), and scopes it to a board. The verb/resource pairing naturally distinguishes it from siblings like archive_card, though it never names that alternative. Clear but no explicit sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention how it relates to archive_card or any unarchive counterpart, leaving the agent to infer the context. Only implied usage from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.