Skip to main content
Glama
m0xai

Trello MCP Server with Python

by m0xai

delete_list

Archive Trello lists to remove them from active boards while preserving data for reference or restoration.

Instructions

Archives a list.

Args:
    list_id (str): The ID of the list to close.

Returns:
    TrelloList: The archived list object.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler function that executes the delete_list tool logic by archiving a Trello list using the ListService.
    async def delete_list(ctx: Context, list_id: str) -> TrelloList:
        """Archives a list.
    
        Args:
            list_id (str): The ID of the list to close.
    
        Returns:
            TrelloList: The archived list object.
        """
        try:
            logger.info(f"Archiving list: {list_id}")
            result = await service.delete_list(list_id)
            logger.info(f"Successfully archived list: {list_id}")
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            error_msg = f"Failed to delete list: {str(e)}"
            logger.error(error_msg)
            await ctx.error(error_msg)
            raise
  • Registration of the delete_list tool with the MCP server.
    mcp.add_tool(list.delete_list)
  • Supporting service method that performs the Trello API PUT request to archive (close) the list.
    async def delete_list(self, list_id: str) -> TrelloList:
        """Archives a list.
    
        Args:
            list_id (str): The ID of the list to close.
    
        Returns:
            TrelloList: The archived list object.
        """
        response = await self.client.PUT(
            f"/lists/{list_id}/closed", data={"value": "true"}
        )
        return TrelloList(**response)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Archives') and return value, but lacks critical details: it doesn't clarify if archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., cards in the list). This is inadequate for a mutation tool 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return, but misses behavioral nuances like reversibility or error conditions. It's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps for safe operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying 'The ID of the list to close,' which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's generic 'List Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this effectively compensates, though it doesn't detail ID format or sourcing.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Archives') and resource ('a list'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_card' or 'delete_checklist' beyond the resource type, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., list must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot archive already archived lists), or related tools like 'update_list' for other modifications, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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