Skip to main content
Glama

list_miro_boards

Retrieve accessible Miro boards for Learning Hour content creation, enabling Technical Coaches to organize deliberate practice sessions with structured visual collaboration tools.

Instructions

List all Miro boards accessible with the current token

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of boards to return (default: 50, max: 50)
cursorNoCursor for pagination

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of listing Miro boards. Makes authenticated GET request to Miro API /boards endpoint with optional pagination parameters (limit, cursor), processes response, and handles errors.
    async listBoards(limit: number = 50, cursor?: string): Promise<{ data: MiroBoard[], cursor?: string }> {
      try {
        const params: any = { limit };
        if (cursor) {
          params.cursor = cursor;
        }
    
        const response = await axios.get(`${this.miroApiUrl}/boards`, {
          headers: {
            'authorization': `Bearer ${this.accessToken}`,
          },
          params
        });
    
        return {
          data: response.data.data || [],
          cursor: response.data.cursor
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        throw new Error(`Failed to list boards: ${error.response?.data?.message || error.message}`);
      }
    }
  • MCP tool handler for 'list_miro_boards'. Validates Miro integration, extracts parameters from args, delegates to MiroIntegration.listBoards, formats boards list into MCP content response with pagination info.
    private async listMiroBoards(args: any) {
      try {
        if (!this.miroIntegration) {
          throw new Error('Miro integration not initialized. Ensure MIRO_ACCESS_TOKEN is set in the environment.');
        }
    
        const limit = args.limit || 50;
        const cursor = args.cursor;
    
        const result = await this.miroIntegration.listBoards(limit, cursor);
    
        const boards = result.data.map((board: any) => ({
          id: board.id,
          name: board.name,
          description: board.description || '',
          viewLink: board.viewLink,
          createdAt: board.createdAt,
          modifiedAt: board.modifiedAt
        }));
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Found ${boards.length} Miro boards:`,
            },
            {
              type: "text",
              text: boards.map((b: any) => `- ${b.name} (ID: ${b.id})`).join('\n'),
            },
            ...(result.cursor ? [{
              type: "text",
              text: `\nMore boards available. Use cursor: ${result.cursor}`,
            }] : []),
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        throw new Error(`Failed to list Miro boards: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:186-201 (registration)
    Tool registration in ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including name, description, and input schema definition.
      name: "list_miro_boards",
      description: "List all Miro boards accessible with the current token",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of boards to return (default: 50, max: 50)",
          },
          cursor: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Cursor for pagination",
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • Dispatch case in central CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes 'list_miro_boards' calls to the listMiroBoards method.
    case "list_miro_boards":
      return await this.listMiroBoards(request.params.arguments);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, or what 'accessible' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying action, resource, and scope concisely.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details like response format, error handling, or deeper context needed for a list operation in a multi-tool environment.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the limit and cursor parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as default behavior or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Miro boards'), specifying scope as 'all... accessible with the current token'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_miro_board and delete_miro_board by indicating a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_miro_board which might retrieve a single board.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving multiple boards accessible to the user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_miro_board (for a single board) or create_miro_board. It mentions the token context, which is helpful but not comprehensive.

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/SDiamante13/learning-hour-mcp'

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