Miro MCP

delete-embed-item

Remove a specific embed item from a Miro board by providing the board and item identifiers.

Instructions

Delete a specific embed item from a Miro board

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-embed-item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`boardId`	Yes	Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the embed
`itemId`	Yes	Unique identifier (ID) of the embed that you want to delete

Implementation Reference

src/tools/deleteEmbedItem.ts:13-28 (handler)

The handler function that validates the boardId and itemId inputs, calls the MiroClient API to delete the specified embed item, and returns a success message 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().deleteEmbedItem(boardId, itemId);
    return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ success: true, message: "Embed deleted successfully" }, null, 2));
  } catch (error) {
    return ServerResponse.error(error);
  }
}

src/tools/deleteEmbedItem.ts:9-12 (schema)

Input schema using Zod for validation of boardId and itemId parameters.

args: {
  boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the embed"),
  itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the embed that you want to delete")
},

src/index.ts:164-164 (registration)
Registers the delete-embed-item tool with the ToolBootstrapper.
```
.register(deleteEmbedItemTool)
```
src/index.ts:64-64 (registration)
Imports the deleteEmbedItemTool for registration.
```
import deleteEmbedItemTool from './tools/deleteEmbedItem.js';
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits/constraints. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, consequences, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. Given the complexity of a delete operation and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 the target ('a specific embed item from a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other delete operations like 'delete-item' or 'delete-embed-item' vs 'delete-app-card-item', which are present in the sibling tools list.

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. With multiple delete tools available (e.g., 'delete-item', 'delete-embed-item', 'delete-app-card-item'), there's no indication of when this specific embed deletion is appropriate versus a more general deletion method.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server