Fetches one specific Trello board field, such as name, prefs, or labelNames, by board ID so you can inspect board settings without retrieving the whole board.
Use when you need one specific board field, such as prefs, labelNames, subscribed, name, description, or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | Yes | Single board field to read. Use prefs for common board preferences and labelNames for board label names. | |
| boardId | Yes | Trello board id to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does 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 explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention permissions or side effects, or describe what the tool returns for the requested field.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary exposition. Its examples are useful, though some overlap with the enum and include labels that do not exactly match schema enum values such as 'desc' and 'url'.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate for selection and invocation. It is less complete about the return value, since there is no output schema and the description does not explain what reading a field returns.
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 the schema already documents both parameters and the field enum. The description adds example field names, but this largely duplicates the enum and does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema.
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 clearly identifies a specific resource and scope: retrieving one board field. It distinguishes this from broader board retrieval by emphasizing a single field, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool board_get.
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?
The phrase 'Use when you need one specific board field' gives implied usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as board_get or explain when to use this tool versus retrieving the full board.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.