set_active_boardSets the active Trello board for subsequent operations, so you can target the correct board by its ID without reselecting it each time.
Set the active board for future operations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| boardId | Yes | ID of the board to set as active |
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. It does not say whether the active board persists across sessions or across processes, whether it costs a request, whether it errors on an invalid boardId, or whether it is scoped per user.
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 verb and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 one-parameter state-setting tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the minimum. It is missing the scope of "active" (session vs. persistent) and any error/precondition behavior an agent would want.
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 coverage is 100% and the single required boardId is documented in the schema itself, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ("Set") and resource ("the active board") plus the effect on subsequent calls ("for future operations"). It is distinguishable from the read counterpart get_active_board_info, though it never names that sibling or the analogous set_active_workspace.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase "for future operations" faintly implies this must be called before board-scoped actions, but no alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid boardId from list_boards) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.