Skip to main content
Glama

create-tag

Add custom tags to Miro boards to organize and categorize content. Specify board ID, tag title, and optional color for visual grouping.

Instructions

Create a new tag on a Miro board

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the board where the tag will be created
dataYesThe content and configuration of the tag
fillColorNoFill color of the tag (hex format, e.g. #000000)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of the 'create-tag' tool, validating inputs, constructing a TagCreateRequest, and calling the Miro API to create a tag on the board.
    fn: async ({ boardId, data, fillColor }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
    
        const createRequest = new TagCreateRequest();
        createRequest.title = data.title;
        
        if (fillColor) {
          createRequest.fillColor = fillColor;
        }
    
        const result = await MiroClient.getApi().createTag(boardId, createRequest);
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod-based input schema defining the parameters for the 'create-tag' tool: required boardId and data.title, optional fillColor.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board where the tag will be created"),
      data: z.object({
        title: z.string().describe("Title of the tag")
      }).describe("The content and configuration of the tag"),
      fillColor: z.string().optional().nullish().describe("Fill color of the tag (hex format, e.g. #000000)")
    },
  • src/index.ts:165-165 (registration)
    Registers the createTagTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance in the main index file.
    .register(createTagTool)
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 creates a tag but omits critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or the response format. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, nor does it hint at the return value. Given the complexity of creating a resource, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 all parameters (boardId, data, fillColor). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between data.title and fillColor. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Create a new tag') and resource ('on a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'attach-tag' or 'update-tag', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 'attach-tag' (for existing tags) or 'update-tag' (for modifications). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as board access permissions, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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