get_board_membersFetch all members of a Trello board using its board ID to identify collaborators and assignees for task management.
Get all members 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it describe permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what 'members' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though its brevity contributes to the other gaps.
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 read tool with only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows what it does and what parameters exist. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would make it fully complete.
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 are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., default board behavior), which is acceptable given the schema's completeness but offers no extra value.
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 members of a specific board'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_board_labels or get_board_custom_fields, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It simply states what the tool does, 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.