Skip to main content
Glama

share-board

Share a Miro board with specific collaborators by setting access levels like view, comment, or edit permissions.

Instructions

Share a Miro board with specific access level and optional team assignment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesID of the board to share
accessLevelYesAccess level for shared board
teamIdNoTeam ID to assign the board to

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: validates input, constructs board changes for sharing policy and optional team, calls Miro API to update board, handles errors.
    fn: async ({ boardId, accessLevel, teamId }) => {
      try {
        if (!boardId) {
          return ServerResponse.error("Board ID is required");
        }
    
        const boardChanges = {
          sharingPolicy: {
            access: accessLevel
          },
          teamId
        };
    
        const result = await MiroClient.getApi().updateBoard(boardId, boardChanges);
    
        return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(result, null, 2));
      } catch (error) {
        process.stderr.write(`Error sharing Miro board: ${error}\n`);
        return ServerResponse.error(error);
      }
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and Zod input schema for parameters.
    name: "share-board",
    description: "Share a Miro board with specific access level and optional team assignment",
    args: {
      boardId: z.string().describe("ID of the board to share"),
      accessLevel: z.enum(['private', 'view', 'comment', 'edit']).describe("Access level for shared board"),
      teamId: z.string().optional().nullish().describe("Team ID to assign the board to"),
    },
  • src/index.ts:176-176 (registration)
    Registration of the shareBoardTool with the ToolBootstrapper instance.
    .register(shareBoardTool)
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 the tool 'shares' a board, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing shares, what happens when teamId is omitted, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Share a Miro board' establishes the action, 'with specific access level' clarifies a key parameter, and 'optional team assignment' highlights flexibility. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about permissions required, side effects (e.g., notifications sent), error handling, and what the tool returns. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral and output context is missing, making it inadequate for safe agent 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional team assignment' (implied by teamId being optional) and 'specific access level' (already in schema). It doesn't provide additional context like what 'private' access means or how team assignment interacts with access levels.

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 ('share') and resource ('Miro board') with specific details about access level and optional team assignment. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update-board-member' or 'remove-board-member' by focusing on sharing rather than modifying existing permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential sharing-related tools that might exist in a broader context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing board ownership/permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update-board-member' for modifying existing shares. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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