Skip to main content
Glama

delete-app-card-item

Remove a specific app card from a Miro board by providing the board ID and item ID to manage board content efficiently.

Instructions

Delete a specific app card item from a Miro board

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the app card
itemIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the app card that you want to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of the 'delete-app-card-item' tool. It validates the boardId and itemId parameters and uses MiroClient to delete the app card item from the board.
    fn: async ({ boardId, itemId }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
        
        if (!itemId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Item ID is required");
        }
    
        await MiroClient.getApi().deleteAppCardItem(boardId, itemId);
        
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({
          success: true,
          message: `App Card Item ${itemId} successfully deleted from board ${boardId}`
        }, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the tool: boardId and itemId, both required strings with descriptions.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the app card"),
      itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the app card that you want to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:124-124 (registration)
    Registration of the deleteAppCardItemTool in the ToolBootstrapper chain in the main index file.
    .register(deleteAppCardItemTool)
  • src/index.ts:23-23 (registration)
    Import statement for the deleteAppCardItemTool used in registration.
    import deleteAppCardItemTool from './tools/deleteAppCardItem.js';
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 the tool deletes an item, implying destructive action, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like permissions required, irreversibility, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications, success/error responses, and differentiation from siblings, failing to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use in a complex toolset.

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%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying specificity ('specific app card item'), but doesn't compensate for schema gaps since there are none. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a specific app card item from a Miro board'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-card-item' or 'delete-item', which could handle similar deletions, leaving some ambiguity about specialization.

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. With siblings like 'delete-card-item', 'delete-item', and 'delete-app-card-item' available, the description lacks context on prerequisites, distinctions, or exclusions, offering minimal 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