Skip to main content
Glama

attach-tag

Attach tags to items on Miro boards to organize and categorize content for better workflow management.

Instructions

Attach a tag to an item on a Miro board

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the tag and item
tagIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the tag that you want to attach
itemIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the item to which you want to attach the tag

Implementation Reference

  • The async function that implements the 'attach-tag' tool logic: validates required inputs (boardId, tagId, itemId), calls Miro API to attach tag to item, returns success or error response.
    fn: async ({ boardId, tagId, itemId }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
    
        if (!tagId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Tag ID is required");
        }
    
        if (!itemId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Item ID is required");
        }
    
        await MiroClient.getApi().attachTagToItem(boardId, itemId, tagId);
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ success: true, message: "Tag attached successfully" }, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • ToolSchema definition for 'attach-tag' including name, description, and Zod schemas for input parameters: boardId, tagId, itemId.
    const attachTagTool: ToolSchema = {
      name: "attach-tag",
      description: "Attach a tag to an item on a Miro board",
      args: {
        boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the tag and item"),
        tagId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the tag that you want to attach"),
        itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the item to which you want to attach the tag")
      },
  • src/index.ts:170-170 (registration)
    Registers the attachTagTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance.
    .register(attachTagTool)
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 tool performs an attachment operation but doesn't clarify whether this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies board state, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the operation but lacks important context about behavioral traits, error conditions, and what constitutes successful execution. The high schema coverage helps, but more behavioral information would be needed for full completeness.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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 ('attach') and resource ('a tag to an item on a Miro board'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'detach-tag', which is a clear alternative operation on the same resource type.

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 like 'detach-tag' or 'update-tag', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing tags or items. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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/k-jarzyna/mcp-miro'

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