Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Miro MCP

Miro MCP

by k-jarzyna
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update-tag

Modify existing tags on Miro boards by updating their titles or colors to maintain organized visual workflows.

Instructions

Update an existing tag on a Miro board

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "tagId": "<tagId>"
    },
    "name": "update-tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the board that contains the tag
tagIdYesUnique identifier (ID) of the tag that you want to update
titleNoUpdated title of the tag
fillColorNoUpdated fill color of the tag (hex format, e.g. #000000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fillColor / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "not": {}
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / fillColor / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "not": {}
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / title / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observed

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) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool and front-loads the essential information. 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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, what permissions are needed, or provide any behavioral context. The agent would need to guess about important aspects of tool behavior when invoking it.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify that only title and fillColor can be updated. 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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing tag on a Miro board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create-tag' and 'delete-tag' by specifying it's for updating existing tags. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the tag can be updated, which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tag), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new tags), or refer to related tools like 'create-tag' or 'delete-tag' from the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools