Miro MCP

update-board-classification

Update classification labels on Miro boards to organize content and manage access for enterprise teams.

Instructions

Updates board classification for an existing board (Enterprise only)

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": {
      "orgId": "<orgId>",
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "labelId": "<labelId>"
    },
    "name": "update-board-classification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgId`	Yes	id of the organization
`teamId`	Yes	id of the team
`boardId`	Yes	Unique identifier of the board that you want to update
`labelId`	Yes	Unique identifier of the classification label to apply

Implementation Reference

src/tools/updateBoardClassification.ts:15-33 (handler)

The handler function that executes the tool logic: prepares the label ID object and calls MiroClient's enterpriseDataclassificationBoardSet API to update the board classification, handles errors and returns response.

fn: async ({ orgId, teamId, boardId, labelId }) => {
  try {
    const dataClassificationLabelId = {
      labelId: labelId
    };

    const response = await MiroClient.getApi().enterpriseDataclassificationBoardSet(
      orgId, 
      teamId, 
      boardId, 
      dataClassificationLabelId
    );

    return ServerResponse.text(JSON.stringify(response.body, null, 2));
  } catch (error) {
    process.stderr.write(`Error updating board classification: ${error}\n`);
    return ServerResponse.error(error);
  }
}

src/tools/updateBoardClassification.ts:9-14 (schema)

Input schema using Zod validators for the required parameters: orgId, teamId, boardId, labelId.

args: {
  orgId: z.string().describe("id of the organization"),
  teamId: z.string().describe("id of the team"),
  boardId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier of the board that you want to update"),
  labelId: z.string().describe("Unique identifier of the classification label to apply")
},

src/index.ts:191-191 (registration)
Registration of the updateBoardClassificationTool in the ToolBootstrapper chain.
```
.register(updateBoardClassificationTool)
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and is 'Enterprise only' (suggesting permission requirements), but doesn't describe what happens during classification update, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. Significant behavioral gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and an important constraint ('Enterprise only'). There's no wasted language, and the key information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what classification means in this context, what happens when applied, potential side effects, or what success/failure looks like. The 'Enterprise only' constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output information.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Updates') and resource ('board classification for an existing board'), making the purpose understandable. It also specifies 'Enterprise only' which adds important context. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar update tools like 'update-board' or 'update-board-member' among the siblings.

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 minimal guidance - only that it's for 'Enterprise only' and updates classification. It doesn't explain when to use this versus other board update tools, what prerequisites exist, or any alternatives. No explicit when/when-not usage instructions are provided.

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

Deploy Server