get_board_labelsRetrieve all labels from a Trello board by board ID so you can review tag options when categorizing or filtering cards.
Get all labels of a specific board
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return Trello's full reply instead of the trimmed one (default: false) | |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not confirm read-only safety, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or return format. This is a significant gap 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.
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 for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, 100% schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits relevant context such as the default-board behavior noted in the schema and any usage guidance relative to sibling label and board tools, leaving it incomplete for an agent that must select among many alternatives.
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 both parameters (raw and boardId) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('all labels of a specific board'), distinguishing it from sibling write tools like create_label and update_label. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other read siblings such as list_boards or get_board_members, so it stops 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 description merely restates the operation, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.