trello-mcp

Update a board

update_board

Update a Trello board's name, description, or archive status with a single API call.

Instructions

Update a board's name, description, or open/closed state.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Board id
`desc`	No	New board description
`name`	No	New board name
`closed`	No	true to archive the board

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates mutation ('update') but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error states. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. No superfluous words; every element earns its place. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 parameters, straightforward update), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks return value details, behavioral notes, and guidance on how this fits with sibling tools, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description rephrases the fields (name, description, closed) but adds no new meaning (e.g., explaining that 'closed' archives the board). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating a board's name, description, or open/closed state. It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('board'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_board, delete_board, or get_board.

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 (e.g., update_card, update_list, or create_board). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.