Skip to main content
Glama

get-specific-board

Retrieve details for a specific Miro board using its unique identifier to access board information and content.

Instructions

Retrieve information about a specific Miro board by its ID

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous handler function that implements the core logic of the 'get-specific-board' tool. It validates the boardId input, calls the MiroClient API to fetch the specific board data, and returns the JSON-formatted response or an error.
    fn: async ({ boardId }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
    
        const boardData = await MiroClient.getApi().getSpecificBoard(boardId);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(boardData, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error fetching specific Miro board: ${error}\n`);
    
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • The tool schema defining the name, description, and input schema (using Zod) for the 'get-specific-board' tool, specifying the required 'boardId' parameter.
    name: "get-specific-board",
    description: "Retrieve information about a specific Miro board by its ID",
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier (ID) of the board that you want to retrieve")
    },
  • src/index.ts:116-116 (registration)
    The registration of the 'get-specific-board' tool into the ToolBootstrapper instance in the main entry point.
    .register(getSpecificBoardTool)
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 this is a retrieval operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or mention any constraints like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieve information'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and key parameter.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left guessing about the response structure and operational constraints, making this incomplete for optimal use.

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 the single parameter 'boardId' fully documented in the schema as 'Unique identifier (ID) of the board that you want to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 ('Retrieve information') and resource ('about a specific Miro board'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-board-export-job-results' or 'get-board-content-logs', which also retrieve board-related information but for different aspects.

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 siblings like 'list-boards' (for multiple boards) or 'get-specific-item' (for board items), leaving the agent without context for tool selection. The only implied usage is retrieving a single board by ID, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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