create_checklistCreates a checklist on a Trello card and adds its items in the same call. Name it 'Acceptance Criteria' for acceptance criteria.
Create a checklist on a card, with its items in the same call. Name it "Acceptance Criteria" for acceptance criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the checklist to create | |
| items | No | Items to add, in order (none if not provided) | |
| cardId | Yes | ID of the Trello 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 burden. It discloses that items are created atomically with the checklist, but says nothing about side effects, required permissions, behavior on duplicate checklist names, or what happens if cardId is invalid. For an unannotated write tool this is a substantial gap.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. The naming-convention sentence is awkwardly phrased and somewhat niche, but nothing is padded or redundant.
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 3-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus the item-batching behavior. It is still missing failure/duplicate-handling context that an agent would want before calling a create operation.
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 name, items and cardId are already documented in the schema (including item ordering and the 'none if not provided' default). The description adds only the notion that items belong to the same call; 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 and resource (create a checklist on a card) and adds scope detail that implicitly separates it from add_checklist_item and copy_checklist: items are supplied in the same call. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
The second sentence gives a naming convention for one specific use case (use 'Acceptance Criteria' for acceptance criteria), which is a genuine usage hint tied to the sibling get_acceptance_criteria. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus add_checklist_item, copy_checklist, or how to handle a card that already has a checklist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.