get_my_cardsFetch all Trello cards assigned to the current user. Use it to see your tasks across boards in one call.
Fetch all cards assigned to the current user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return Trello's full reply instead of the trimmed one (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only fetch and scopes results to the current user, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, whether archived cards are included, or any other operational traits.
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 filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.
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 one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the returned resource: cards assigned to the current user. It could still say more about output shape or pagination, but the core information needed to call the tool is present.
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?
There is one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'raw' as controlling full versus trimmed Trello replies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which makes 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch all cards assigned to the current user.' It is clear what the tool returns and distinguishes itself from broader card-listing siblings by scoping to the current user, but it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.
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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent can infer that it fetches the current user's assigned cards, but there is no routing help against siblings like get_cards_by_list_id or search_cards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.