Skip to main content
Glama

list-boards

Retrieve all available Miro boards with pagination controls to manage large collections efficiently.

Instructions

List all available Miro boards

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of boards to return (default: 50)
offsetNoOffset for pagination (default: 0)

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous handler function that executes the 'list-boards' tool logic. It fetches all available Miro boards using MiroClient.getApi().getBoards(), handles pagination parameters (limit and offset), and returns the boards data as JSON or an error response.
    fn: async ({ limit = 50, offset = 0 }) => {
      try {
    
        const boardsData = await MiroClient.getApi().getBoards();
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(boardsData, null, 2))
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error fetching Miro boards: ${error}\n`);
    
        return ServerResponse.error(error)
      }
    }
  • The ToolSchema definition for 'list-boards', including the tool name, description, and Zod-based input schema for optional limit and offset parameters.
    const listBoardsTool: ToolSchema = {
      name: "list-boards",
      description: "List all available Miro boards",
      args: {
        limit: z.number().optional().nullish().describe("Maximum number of boards to return (default: 50)"),
        offset: z.number().optional().nullish().describe("Offset for pagination (default: 0)")
      },
  • src/index.ts:111-111 (registration)
    The registration of the 'list-boards' tool into the ToolBootstrapper instance, which adds it to the MCP server tools list.
    .register(listBoardsTool)
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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), or what 'all available' means in terms of access permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 list operation with good schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide important context about authentication, permissions, or how results are structured. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention something about return format, but it doesn't.

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 both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. This meets the baseline expectation when 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 ('List') and resource ('all available Miro boards'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-specific-board' or 'get-items-on-board' that also retrieve board 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-specific-board' (for single boards) and 'get-items-on-board' (for board contents), there's no indication of when this list-all-boards approach is preferred over more targeted queries.

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