get_checklist_itemsRetrieve all items from a Trello checklist by its name. Scope the search with a card or board ID to avoid ambiguity.
Get all items from a checklist by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the checklist to retrieve items from | |
| cardId | No | ID of the card to scope checklist search to (recommended to avoid ambiguity) | |
| 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. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about ambiguity when multiple checklists share a name, pagination, ordering, or what happens when the name is not found. For a name-keyed lookup with zero annotation coverage, that gap is material.
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 no filler; the resource and the lookup key come first. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for the ambiguity risk this lookup carries.
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 read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the one thing an agent would benefit from knowing here: name collisions across cards and how boardId/cardId resolve them.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the cardId ambiguity warning. The description adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ('Get all items from a checklist') and adds the lookup key ('by name'), which separates it from get_checklist_by_name and add_checklist_item. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the schema.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings get_checklist_by_name or find_checklist_items_by_description. The only hint about usage lives in the cardId schema field, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.