Miro MCP

get-shape-item

Retrieve information about a specific shape on a Miro board by providing the board and shape IDs.

Instructions

Retrieve information about a specific shape item on a Miro board

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "get-shape-item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`boardId`	Yes	Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the shape
`itemId`	Yes	Unique identifier (ID) of the shape that you want to retrieve

Implementation Reference

src/tools/getShapeItem.ts:13-28 (handler)

The handler function for the 'get-shape-item' tool. It validates boardId and itemId, calls MiroClient.getApi().getShapeItem, and returns the JSON result or an error response.

fn: async ({ boardId, itemId }) => {
  try {
    if (!boardId) {
      return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
    }

    if (!itemId) {
      return ServerResponse.error("Item ID is required");
    }

    const result = await MiroClient.getApi().getShapeItem(boardId, itemId);
    return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
  } catch (error) {
    return ServerResponse.error(error);
  }
}

src/tools/getShapeItem.ts:6-12 (schema)

Tool schema definition including name, description, and Zod input schema for boardId and itemId parameters.

const getShapeItemTool: ToolSchema = {
  name: "get-shape-item",
  description: "Retrieve information about a specific shape item on a Miro board",
  args: {
    boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the shape"),
    itemId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the shape that you want to retrieve")
  },

src/index.ts:158-158 (registration)
Registration of the getShapeItemTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance.
```
.register(getShapeItemTool)
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned information. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which are important for a retrieval operation. This makes it minimally complete but with clear 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (boardId and itemId). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'shape item on a Miro board', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get-specific-item' or 'get-app-card-item', which also retrieve specific items, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-specific-item' (which might retrieve any item type) or 'get-items-on-board' (which retrieves multiple items), leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server