Check or uncheck a Trello card checklist item without changing other item fields.
Use when checking or unchecking a Trello card checklist item without changing other item fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | Trello card id, short link, or Trello card URL. | |
| checked | Yes | True checks the item; false unchecks it. | |
| checkItemId | Yes | Trello checklist item id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait — that only the checked field is touched and other item fields are left intact — but says nothing about idempotency, required permissions, or what is returned after the mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is doing very little work beyond the title, which leaves little for the reader who skips the schema.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least signal the mutation's scope and any preconditions. The 'only changes checked' scope is covered, but side effects, failure modes, and return behavior are all absent.
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 coverage is 100%: cardId (id/short link/URL), checkItemId, and the boolean checked semantics are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what is already there, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names the specific action (checking/unchecking a checklist item) and the resource (Trello card checklist item), and implicitly distinguishes itself from card_checklist_item_update by scoping the mutation to the checked field only. It is not tautological, though it never states the tool's effect in a standalone verb phrase.
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?
Opens with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger covering both directions (check and uncheck). The clause 'without changing other item fields' signals the boundary against card_checklist_item_update, but that sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.