Skip to main content
Glama
m0xai

Trello MCP Server with Python

by m0xai

delete_card

Remove a specific card from Trello boards by providing its unique ID to manage your project tasks efficiently.

Instructions

Deletes a card.

Args:
    card_id (str): The ID of the card to delete.

Returns:
    dict: The response from the delete operation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'delete_card'. Logs the deletion attempt, delegates to CardService.delete_card, handles success/error logging and returns the result.
    async def delete_card(ctx: Context, card_id: str) -> dict:
        """Deletes a card.
    
        Args:
            card_id (str): The ID of the card to delete.
    
        Returns:
            dict: The response from the delete operation.
        """
        try:
            logger.info(f"Deleting card: {card_id}")
            result = await service.delete_card(card_id)
            logger.info(f"Successfully deleted card: {card_id}")
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to delete card: {str(e)}"
            logger.error(error_msg)
            await ctx.error(error_msg)
            raise
  • Registration of card-related tools, including delete_card, in the MCP server.
    # Card Tools
    mcp.add_tool(card.get_card)
    mcp.add_tool(card.get_cards)
    mcp.add_tool(card.create_card)
    mcp.add_tool(card.update_card)
    mcp.add_tool(card.delete_card)
  • The core deletion logic in CardService, which calls the Trello API DELETE endpoint.
    async def delete_card(self, card_id: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Deletes a card.
    
        Args:
            card_id (str): The ID of the card to delete.
    
        Returns:
            Dict[str, Any]: The response from the delete operation.
        """
        return await self.client.DELETE(f"/cards/{card_id}")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a card, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't describe consequences (e.g., irreversible removal, effects on associated items like checklists), permissions required, error conditions, or what the response dict contains. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action ('Deletes a card.') and uses a structured format for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. However, the Returns section is vague ('The response from the delete operation'), which adds little value and could be more concise. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like side effects, success/error responses, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., what happens to checklists on a deleted card). For a mutation tool in this context, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('card_id') and states it's 'The ID of the card to delete', which clarifies the purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Card Id' title. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic but insufficient detail (e.g., no format examples like numeric vs. string IDs). The baseline is 3 since the schema lacks descriptions, but the tool compensates only partially.

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 verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a card'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete_checkitem' or 'delete_checklist' by specifying the card resource. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what system or context (e.g., Trello-like board management) the card belongs to, which prevents a perfect score.

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., needing an existing card), exclusions (e.g., not for archived cards), or relationships with sibling tools like 'delete_list' or 'update_card'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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/m0xai/trello-mcp-server'

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