get_listsRetrieve all lists from a specified Trello board. Provide a board ID or omit it to use the default board.
Retrieve all lists from the specified 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 behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, pagination, whether archived lists are included, or the effect of the raw parameter.
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 wasted words. It communicates the core action and scope immediately.
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 two-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it could usefully clarify what is returned (e.g., open/closed lists, list shape) and when default board behavior applies.
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 the schema already documents both raw and boardId. The description adds only 'from the specified board', which is consistent with but not richer than the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve all lists from a board. It is clear enough to distinguish from board-level or card-level siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from tools like get_cards_by_list_id or list_boards.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The only usage hint is the phrase 'specified board', which is already captured by the boardId parameter in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.