Skip to main content
Glama

delete-board

Remove a Miro board by its ID. Deleted boards move to Trash on paid plans and can be restored within 90 days.

Instructions

Delete a Miro board by its ID. Deleted boards go to Trash (on paid plans) and can be restored via UI within 90 days after deletion.

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the deletion of a Miro board by ID using MiroClient API, handles errors, and returns appropriate responses.
    fn: async ({ boardId }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
    
        await MiroClient.getApi().deleteBoard(boardId);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ 
          success: true, 
          message: `Board ${boardId} has been successfully deleted.` 
        }, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error deleting Miro board: ${error}\n`);
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • The ToolSchema definition including name, description, and input schema using Zod for boardId validation.
    const deleteBoardTool: ToolSchema = {
      name: "delete-board",
      description: "Delete a Miro board by its ID. Deleted boards go to Trash (on paid plans) and can be restored via UI within 90 days after deletion.",
      args: {
        boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that you want to delete")
      },
  • src/index.ts:114-114 (registration)
    Registers the deleteBoardTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance.
    .register(deleteBoardTool)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action. It discloses that deleted boards go to Trash on paid plans and can be restored via UI within 90 days, which informs about reversibility and plan dependencies. However, it doesn't cover error conditions or permissions required.

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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds crucial behavioral details in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the deletion outcome and restoration details, but lacks information on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving some gaps for an AI 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'boardId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as format or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete a Miro board') and resource ('by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete-item' or 'delete-frame-item' which target different resources. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being tautological.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing board ownership or specific permissions, or differentiate from similar deletion tools like 'delete-item' in the sibling list. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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