Skip to main content
Glama

get-all-cases

Retrieve all eDiscovery cases in a Miro organization to manage legal and compliance investigations.

Instructions

Retrieves the list of eDiscovery cases in an organization (Enterprise only)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitYesThe maximum number of items in the result list
orgIdYesThe ID of the organization for which you want to retrieve the list of cases
cursorNoCursor for pagination

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous function that implements the core logic of the 'get-all-cases' tool. It constructs a query object, calls MiroClient.getApi().getAllCases with limit, orgId, and query, and returns the formatted response or handles errors.
    fn: async ({ limit, orgId, cursor }) => {
      try {
        const query: any = {};
        if (cursor) query.cursor = cursor;
    
        const response = await MiroClient.getApi().getAllCases(limit, orgId, query);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(response.body, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error retrieving cases: ${error}\n`);
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input arguments for the 'get-all-cases' tool: limit (number), orgId (string), cursor (optional string).
    args: {
      limit: z.number().describe("The maximum number of items in the result list"),
      orgId: z.string().describe("The ID of the organization for which you want to retrieve the list of cases"),
      cursor: z.string().optional().nullish().describe("Cursor for pagination")
  • src/index.ts:202-202 (registration)
    Registers the getAllCasesTool with the ToolBootstrapper, making the 'get-all-cases' tool available to the MCP server.
    .register(getAllCasesTool)
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 mentions 'Enterprise only', hinting at access restrictions, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' param but not explained), or response format. For a read operation with 3 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Retrieves the list'). It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying pagination). Every word earns its place, though it's borderline minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a restriction ('Enterprise only'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, response structure, or error handling. For a list-retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying organization scope ('in an organization'), which is already covered by 'orgId'. No syntax, format, or usage examples are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of eDiscovery cases'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-case' (singular) and 'get-legal-hold' (different resource), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get-all-legal-holds' (similar pattern) or clarify scope beyond 'Enterprise only', leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by mentioning 'Enterprise only', suggesting a context restriction, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get-case' (singular) or 'get-legal-hold' (different type). No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings is provided, relying on implied context.

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