List notes, shapes, and text items on a Miro board using board ID, with optional type filtering and result limits.
List the items (notes, shapes, text) on a Miro board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by item type (e.g. sticky_note, shape, text) | |
| limit | No | Items to return (max 50, default 25) | |
| board_id | Yes | Miro board id | |
| access_token | Yes | Miro access token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the content type of the results (notes, shapes, text) but is silent on pagination behavior, ordering, and the fact that a Miro access token is required, which leaves meaningful context gap for an open-world API call.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient but arguably undersized for a four-parameter listing tool, so the tightness comes partly from omission rather than editorial discipline.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only place to learn what an item record contains, and it gives only three example type names. Combined with the missing pagination and ordering notes, an agent can call the tool but cannot predict the response shape well.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the four parameters has its own description, including the type filter and the limit cap. The description's mention of notes/shapes/text loosely echoes the type filter but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the items ... on a Miro board") and clarifies item scope with examples (notes, shapes, text), which separates it from miro_list_boards and miro_get_board. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
It says the listing is board-scoped but offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over miro_get_board or miro_list_boards, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.