Skip to main content
Glama
diegofornalha

MCP Server Trello

archive_card

Move a specific Trello card to the archive using its unique ID for organized board management, ensuring efficient task cleanup and workspace maintenance.

Instructions

Send a card to the archive

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardIdYesID of the card to archive

Implementation Reference

  • MCP CallToolRequest handler for 'archive_card' tool: validates arguments and calls TrelloClient.archiveCard
    case 'archive_card': {
      const validArgs = validateArchiveCardRequest(args);
      const card = await this.trelloClient.archiveCard(validArgs.cardId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(card, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Core implementation of archiving a Trello card by setting 'closed: true' via API PUT request
    async archiveCard(cardId: string): Promise<TrelloCard> {
      return this.handleRequest(async () => {
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.put(`/cards/${cardId}`, {
          closed: true,
        });
        return response.data;
      });
    }
  • Input schema validation function ensuring 'cardId' is provided and is a string
    export function validateArchiveCardRequest(args: Record<string, unknown>): { cardId: string } {
      if (!args.cardId) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'cardId is required');
      }
      return {
        cardId: validateString(args.cardId, 'cardId'),
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:164-177 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListTools response, defining name, description, and input schema
    {
      name: 'archive_card',
      description: 'Send a card to the archive',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          cardId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID of the card to archive',
          },
        },
        required: ['cardId'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Send a card to the archive' implies a destructive/mutative operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data, or what happens after archiving. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is perfectly concise at just four words, front-loading the essential action without any wasted words. Every element ('Send', 'a card', 'to the archive') earns its place by conveying core functionality.

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 is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what 'archive' means operationally, whether the action is permanent or reversible, what the expected outcome is, or how this fits within the broader card management workflow with sibling tools.

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 the single parameter 'cardId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Send') and target resource ('a card to the archive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'archive_list' or explain what distinguishes archiving from deletion or other card operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., card must exist), when archiving is appropriate versus deleting or moving cards, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'update_card_details' or 'get_my_cards'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/diegofornalha/mcp-server-trello'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server