Skip to main content
Glama

delete-card-item

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

Instructions

Delete a specific card item from a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic: validates boardId and itemId, calls MiroClient API to delete the card item, and returns success or error response.
    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().deleteCardItem(boardId, itemId);
        
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({
          success: true,
          message: `Card Item ${itemId} successfully deleted from board ${boardId}`
        }, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and Zod input schema for boardId and itemId parameters.
    name: "delete-card-item",
    description: "Delete a specific card item from a Miro board",
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the card"),
      itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the card that you want to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:128-128 (registration)
    Registers the deleteCardItemTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance.
    .register(deleteCardItemTool)
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, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 crucial behavioral context (e.g., permanence, permissions, response format) and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and correct usage.

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 descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'boardId' and 'itemId' are used to locate the card, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a specific card item from a Miro board'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-item' or 'delete-app-card-item', which appear to handle similar deletion operations for different item types.

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 'delete-item' or other deletion tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context for selection.

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