remove_label_from_cardRemove one label from a Trello card while leaving all other labels intact. Use it to update card categorization without altering remaining tags.
Remove one label from a card. The other labels on the card stay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | ID of the card | |
| labelId | Yes | ID of the label to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it does disclose a real behavioral trait: only the specified label is removed and other labels persist, which distinguishes a targeted detach from a full reset. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or error behavior when the label is absent.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope qualifier. No padding or redundancy.
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 mutation with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It stops short of covering failure modes or required permissions.
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 cardId and labelId are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the cardinality constraint ('one label'), which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.
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 (remove) and resource (label from a card), and the 'one label' scoping implicitly contrasts with the sibling add_label_to_card. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inverse of add_label_to_card and distinct from delete_label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.