Miro MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), or the response format. It lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant gaps 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.

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 and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior (e.g., partial updates allowed), return values, error handling, or permissions required. For a tool that modifies resources, more contextual information is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., boardId, itemId, data with content and shape, position, geometry, style). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing sticky note item on a Miro board'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update-app-card-item, update-card-item, etc.), which would require mentioning what specifically gets updated about sticky notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 and item IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new sticky notes), or refer to sibling tools like 'create-sticky-note-item' or 'delete-sticky-note-item' for different operations.

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