Skip to main content
Glama

get-frame-item

Retrieve specific frame details from a Miro board using board and item IDs to access structured content information.

Instructions

Retrieve information for a specific frame on a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of the 'get-frame-item' tool. It validates inputs, calls the Miro API to retrieve the frame item, and returns the result as formatted JSON or an error.
    fn: async ({ boardId, itemId }: {
      boardId: string,
      itemId: string
    }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
    
        if (!itemId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Item ID is required");
        }
    
        const result = await MiroClient.getApi().getFrameItem(boardId, itemId);
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod-based input schema defining the required parameters 'boardId' and 'itemId' for the tool.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the frame that you want to retrieve"),
      itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the frame that you want to retrieve")
    },
  • src/index.ts:139-139 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get-frame-item' tool using the ToolBootstrapper's register method.
    .register(getFrameItemTool)
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 this is a retrieval operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'information' includes (e.g., metadata, content). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, permissions) and return values, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 descriptions for both parameters (boardId and itemId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 verb ('retrieve') and resource ('information for a specific frame on a Miro board'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar retrieval tools like 'get-app-card-item' or 'get-specific-item' in the sibling list, which would require mentioning what makes frame retrieval unique.

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 siblings like 'get-specific-item' (which might retrieve any item type) and 'get-items-on-board' (which lists multiple items), there's no indication of when this frame-specific retrieval is preferred, leaving usage unclear.

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