Skip to main content
Glama

delete-mindmap-node

Remove a mind map node from a Miro board by specifying the board ID and node ID to clean up or reorganize visual diagrams.

Instructions

Delete a mind map node from a Miro board

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the board from which you want to delete the mind map node
itemIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the mind map node that you want to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic: calls the Miro API to delete a mindmap node and handles the response or error.
    fn: async ({ boardId, itemId }) => {
      try {
        const response = await MiroClient.getApi().deleteMindmapNodeExperimental(boardId, itemId);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(response.body, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error deleting Miro mind map node: ${error}\n`);
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Input schema using Zod for boardId and itemId parameters.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board from which you want to delete the mind map node"),
      itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the mind map node that you want to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:189-189 (registration)
    Registers the deleteMindmapNodeTool in the ToolBootstrapper chain.
    .register(deleteMindmapNodeTool)
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 tool deletes a mind map node, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action 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?

Given the tool is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, which are critical for safe usage in this 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (boardId and itemId). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 mind map node from a Miro board'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-item' or 'delete-mindmap-node' (if that were a sibling), though 'delete-mindmap-node' is specific enough in context.

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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the node to exist or being authorized to delete it.

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