Skip to main content
Glama

delete-connector

Remove a connector from a Miro board by specifying the board and connector IDs to clean up diagrams and workflows.

Instructions

Delete a specific connector from a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that validates the boardId and connectorId inputs, calls the MiroClient API to delete the connector, and returns a success or error response.
    fn: async ({ boardId, connectorId }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
        
        if (!connectorId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Connector ID is required");
        }
    
        await MiroClient.getApi().deleteConnector(boardId, connectorId);
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ success: true, message: "Connector deleted successfully" }, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters: boardId and connectorId.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the connector"),
      connectorId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the connector that you want to delete")
    },
  • The complete ToolSchema definition and export for the 'delete-connector' tool, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    const deleteConnectorTool: ToolSchema = {
      name: "delete-connector",
      description: "Delete a specific connector from a Miro board",
      args: {
        boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the connector"),
        connectorId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the connector that you want to delete")
      },
      fn: async ({ boardId, connectorId }) => {
        try {
          if (!boardId) {
            return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
          }
          
          if (!connectorId) {
            return ServerResponse.error("Connector ID is required");
          }
    
          await MiroClient.getApi().deleteConnector(boardId, connectorId);
          return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ success: true, message: "Connector deleted successfully" }, null, 2));
        } catch (error) {
          return ServerResponse.error(error);
        }
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on connected items, or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 critical context about behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, or error conditions. The purpose is clear, but operational guidance is missing.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'connectorId' identifies what to delete and 'boardId' where it's located, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('a specific connector from a Miro board'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete-board', 'delete-item', or 'update-connector'. It precisely identifies what gets deleted and where it's located.

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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing board access), consequences (e.g., irreversibility), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete-item' for generic items.

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