Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
k-jarzyna

Miro MCP

by k-jarzyna
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

delete-image-item

Remove a specific image from a Miro board by providing the board and image IDs to manage visual content.

Instructions

Delete a specific image item from a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • src/tools/deleteImageItem.ts:13-29 (handler)
    The handler function that performs the actual deletion of the image item using MiroClient's deleteItem API, with input validation and error handling.
    fn: async ({ boardId, itemId }) => {
  try {
    if (!boardId) {
      return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
    }

    if (!itemId) {
      return ServerResponse.error("Item ID is required");
    }

    // Use generic deleteItem
    await MiroClient.getApi().deleteItem(boardId, itemId);
    return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ success: true, message: "Image deleted successfully" }, null, 2));
  } catch (error) {
    return ServerResponse.error(error);
  }
}
  • src/tools/deleteImageItem.ts:9-12 (schema)
    Zod schema defining the input parameters: boardId and itemId.
    args: {
  boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the image"),
  itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the image that you want to delete")
},
  • src/index.ts:156-156 (registration)
    Registers the deleteImageItemTool (which defines the 'delete-image-item' tool) with the ToolBootstrapper for the MCP server.
    .register(deleteImageItemTool)

Tool Definition Quality

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting linked items), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key information ('Delete a specific image item'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, resulting in optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., irreversibility), permissions, or what happens upon deletion (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage beyond inputs, more context is needed to guide safe 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (boardId and itemId). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or sourcing of IDs). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the target ('a specific image item from a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other delete operations like 'delete-item' or 'delete-app-card-item' among the siblings, which would require specifying it's specifically for image items.

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 siblings like 'delete-item' (generic deletion) and 'delete-image-item' (specific to images), there's no indication of which to choose or any prerequisites (e.g., needing board access). This leaves the agent without 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