assign_member_to_cardAssign a Trello member to a specific card by supplying card and member IDs, so the card shows who owns the work.
Assign a member to a specific card
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | ID of the card to assign the member to | |
| memberId | Yes | ID of the member to assign to the card |
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 implies a mutation by saying assign, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, whether the member must belong to the board, or what happens if the member is already assigned.
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 extremely terse for a mutation tool.
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 write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too minimal. It leaves out important context such as required permissions, side effects, and error conditions that an agent would need before invoking it safely.
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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.
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: assign a member to a card. It clearly identifies the action, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling remove_member_from_card beyond the verb assign, so a 4 is appropriate.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, which is not enough for a usage guideline score above 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.