Permanently deletes a checklist and all its items from a Trello card; this action cannot be undone. Use it when you need to remove an entire checklist rather than a single item.
Permanently delete a checklist and all its items from a card. This cannot be undone; use card_checklist_item_delete to remove only one item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | Trello card id, short link, or Trello card URL. | |
| checklistId | Yes | Trello checklist id. |
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 clearly discloses the most important behavioral traits: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and removes all checklist items. It does not mention permission requirements or response behavior, but the key destructive semantics are explicit.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted text. The destructive warning and sibling alternative are front-loaded and directly actionable.
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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk and the main sibling distinction. It could be slightly richer about permissions or return behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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 both required parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for fully documented parameters.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a checklist and all its items from a card. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling card_checklist_item_delete, which removes only one item, so an agent can select the correct tool without inspecting the schema.
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?
It explicitly states the condition that should route the agent elsewhere: use card_checklist_item_delete to remove only one item. This is a direct when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guideline for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.