Skip to main content
Glama

delete-text-item

Remove a text item from a Miro board by specifying the board ID and item ID to manage content effectively.

Instructions

Delete a specific text item from a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous handler function that implements the core logic of the 'delete-text-item' tool. It validates inputs, calls the Miro API to delete the text item, and returns appropriate success or error responses.
    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().deleteTextItem(boardId, itemId);
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify({ success: true, message: "Text item successfully deleted" }));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the tool: boardId and itemId, both required strings with descriptions.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the text item"),
      itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the text item that you want to delete")
    },
  • src/index.ts:149-149 (registration)
    Registration of the deleteTextItemTool in the ToolBootstrapper chain in the main index file.
    .register(deleteTextItemTool)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a deletion but omits critical details: whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it triggers side effects (e.g., removing associated tags), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves the agent guessing about risks and outcomes.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse 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 insufficient. It fails to address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to invoke and interpret results safely.

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 clear parameter documentation in the schema (boardId and itemId). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these IDs target a specific item, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 text item from a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-item' or 'delete-sticky-note-item', which handle other item types, leaving some ambiguity about specialization.

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' (general deletion) or other type-specific deletion tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing board access or item existence, which are critical for effective tool selection.

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