Skip to main content
Glama

get-board-export-job-status

Check the status of a Miro board export job by providing organization and job IDs to monitor progress and completion.

Instructions

Retrieves the status of a board export job (Enterprise only)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgIdYesUnique identifier of the organization
jobIdYesUnique identifier of the board export job

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the core logic: calls the Miro API to get the board export job status for given orgId and jobId, formats the response as JSON, or returns an error response.
    fn: async ({ orgId, jobId }) => {
      try {
        const response = await MiroClient.getApi().enterpriseBoardExportJobStatus(orgId, jobId);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(response.body, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error retrieving board export job status: ${error}\n`);
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • The ToolSchema definition including name, description, and Zod input schema for orgId and jobId parameters.
    const getBoardExportJobStatusTool: ToolSchema = {
      name: "get-board-export-job-status",
      description: "Retrieves the status of a board export job (Enterprise only)",
      args: {
        orgId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier of the organization"),
        jobId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier of the board export job")
      },
  • src/index.ts:193-193 (registration)
    Registers the tool with the ToolBootstrapper instance in the main server bootstrap code.
    .register(getBoardExportJobStatusTool)
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 retrieves status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what the status includes (e.g., progress, errors), whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. The mention 'Enterprise only' adds some context about access restrictions, but overall, the description lacks details on behavioral traits like response format or error handling, making it insufficient for a mutation-free 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieves the status of a board export job') and adds a contextual note ('Enterprise only') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's complexity is low (simple status retrieval with 2 parameters) and no output schema is provided, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and hints at enterprise restrictions, but without annotations or output details, it doesn't fully explain what the status entails or how to interpret results. This makes it adequate for basic use but with clear gaps in guiding effective tool invocation.

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 'orgId' and 'jobId'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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 ('Retrieves') and the resource ('status of a board export job'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-board-export-job' by focusing on status retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-board-export-job-results', which might handle similar job-related data, 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 when checking the status of an existing board export job, as suggested by the verb 'Retrieves' and the parameter 'jobId'. It mentions 'Enterprise only', providing some context on availability. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-board-export-job-results' or prerequisites such as job completion, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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