Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Trello MCP

Trello MCP

by brainquiver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update Comment on Card

update_comment

Change the text of an existing Trello comment by providing its comment ID and new text, so agents can correct or revise card discussions.

Instructions

Update the given comment with the new text

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe new text of the comment
commentIdYesID of the comment to change

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether the update is destructive, whether the previous text is recoverable, whether edit history is recorded, or what permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it omits useful context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover the effect on existing comment content and any permission or failure conditions. None of that is present, leaving the agent with only the schema to work from.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both text and commentId documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, length, or content semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (update) and resource (comment) with the field being changed (text). It is distinguishable from add_comment and delete_comment by implication, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus add_comment (to create) or delete_comment (to remove), and no prerequisites or constraints are stated. The agent must infer that this only applies to an existing comment identified by commentId.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools