Skip to main content
Glama

get-mindmap-node

Retrieve specific mind map node details from a Miro board using board and item identifiers to access structured information.

Instructions

Retrieve information about a specific mind map node on a Miro board

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get-mindmap-node' tool. It takes boardId and itemId, calls MiroClient.getApi().getMindmapNodeExperimental to retrieve the mindmap node data, formats it as JSON, and returns it via ServerResponse.text, or handles errors appropriately.
    fn: async ({ boardId, itemId }) => {
      try {
        const response = await MiroClient.getApi().getMindmapNodeExperimental(boardId, itemId);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(response.body, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error retrieving Miro mind map node: ${error}\n`);
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters: boardId (string) and itemId (string) for the get-mindmap-node tool.
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board from which you want to retrieve a mind map node"),
      itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the mind map node that you want to retrieve")
    },
  • src/index.ts:187-187 (registration)
    Registers the getMindmapNodeTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance in the main server setup.
    .register(getMindmapNodeTool)
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 'Retrieve information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., node properties, children). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is retrieved (e.g., node details, children, metadata) or behavioral aspects like permissions. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 ('Retrieve information') and target resource ('specific mind map node on a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mindmap-nodes' (plural) or 'get-specific-item', which might retrieve similar information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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-mindmap-nodes' (for multiple nodes) and 'get-specific-item' (for generic items), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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