Skip to main content
Glama

delete-item

Remove specific items from Miro boards by providing board and item identifiers to manage board content efficiently.

Instructions

Delete a specific item from a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'delete-item' tool. It validates boardId and itemId, calls MiroClient.getApi().deleteItem(boardId, itemId), and returns a 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().deleteItem(boardId, itemId);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ 
          success: true, 
          message: `Item ${itemId} successfully deleted from board ${boardId}` 
        }, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • The ToolSchema definition including name, description, and Zod input schema for boardId and itemId.
    const deleteItemTool: ToolSchema = {
      name: "delete-item",
      description: "Delete a specific item from a Miro board",
      args: {
        boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the item"),
        itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the item that you want to delete")
      },
  • src/index.ts:120-120 (registration)
    Registration of the deleteItemTool in the ToolBootstrapper chain.
    .register(deleteItemTool)
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 an item but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Delete a specific item from a Miro board'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the mutation's impact (permanence, side effects), permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context about behavior and consequences is needed.

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 (boardId and itemId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format examples, or constraints. With 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 resource ('a specific item from a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other deletion tools like delete-board or delete-card-item by specifying 'item' generically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete-app-card-item or delete-text-item that target specific 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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete-app-card-item, delete-card-item, delete-text-item), there's no indication whether this is a generic deletion tool for any item type or if it has specific constraints. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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