trello-guardrails-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Archive List

archive_list

Archive a Trello list by specifying board and list names to close it and declutter the board. Restore the list later in Trello.

Instructions

Archive (close) a list on a Trello board. Archived lists can be restored in Trello.

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": {
      "board_name": "<board_name>",
      "list_name": "<list_name>"
    },
    "name": "archive_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list_name`	Yes
`board_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful consequence—archived lists can be restored in Trello—but it does not mention effects on cards, permission requirements, or whether restoration via the API is possible.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and object, and the second adds a relevant consequence. No words are wasted, though it is terse to the point of leaving gaps in other dimensions.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (two string parameters, no nesting) and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. However, the description omits parameter semantics and does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently distinguish when to select this tool rather than a sibling mutation tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning, format, or relationship of board_name and list_name. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Archive') with a parenthetical synonym ('close') and a clear object ('a list on a Trello board'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool archive_card by explicitly targeting lists, not cards.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for archiving lists identified by board and list name, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like archive_card, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is inferable but not clarified.

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

Deploy Server