Rename a Trello list, reposition it on its board, or archive/unarchive it by updating the list's name, position, or closed state.
Use when renaming a Trello list, changing its position, or setting its archive state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos | No | Position for the list on its board. | |
| name | No | New list name. | |
| closed | No | Set true to archive the list; false to unarchive it. | |
| listId | Yes | Trello list id to read or update. |
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 burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the trigger conditions. It does not say whether omitted fields leave existing values untouched (partial vs full update), what permissions are required, whether renames are reversible, or what the call returns. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
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 zero filler that puts the trigger conditions first. It is efficient but so terse that it omits any structural cues about behavior or return values.
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?
Well-specified parameters and missing output schema mean the description needn't explain return values, but for a four-parameter mutation with no annotations it should have covered partial-update semantics, permissions, and the archive-vs-list_archive distinction. As written an agent can invoke it correctly but must guess at mutation behavior.
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 all four parameters (name, pos, closed, listId) are already documented in the schema, including enum-like values 'top'/'bottom' and the archive/unarchive meaning of closed. The description merely restates those fields at a higher level and adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail.
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?
States a specific resource (Trello list) and the three concrete operations it covers: rename, reposition, and archive-state change. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_create and list_get, though it never names itself as the update tool nor differentiates from list_archive, which appears to overlap on archiving.
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 list (renaming, changing position, setting archive state), giving an agent clear selection conditions. It offers no exclusions or alternative routing, notably failing to say whether list_archive or list_move_to_board should be preferred for overlapping cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.