remove_member_from_cardDetach a member from a specific Trello card using the card and member IDs to update card assignments without deleting the card or member.
Remove a member from a specific card
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | ID of the card to remove the member from | |
| memberId | Yes | ID of the member to remove from the card |
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 and fails to meet it. It does not state whether the removal requires admin/member permissions, whether it is idempotent or errors when the member is not on the card, or whether the action is reversible.
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 short sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 destructive membership mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits permission requirements, failure modes, and any indication of what happens after removal, leaving real gaps an agent would need filled.
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 memberId are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance beyond what the structured fields provide, making the baseline 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 ('Remove') and resource ('member from a specific card'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name and title verbatim, adding no scope, constraints, or differentiation from siblings like assign_member_to_card or remove_label_from_card.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., membership must exist, permissions required), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.