Creates a Miro board card at specified coordinates with a title and optional due date, size, assignee, description, and styling for task or note placement.
Create a card. due_date is ISO 8601 (2026-12-31).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| card_theme | No | ||
| fill_color | No | ||
| assignee_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| parent_frame_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool creates a card but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, or what happens on failure, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with 12 parameters.
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 front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is too terse for a 12-parameter creation tool. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of necessary detail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: it does not explain required spatial parameters, positioning semantics, or how this differs from sibling creation tools.
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 0%, so the schema alone provides no parameter meaning. The description explains only due_date formatting; the other 11 parameters, including required fields like board_id, title, x, and y, are undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: create a card. It does not differentiate this from sibling tools such as create_app_card, create_sticky_note, or create_frame, leaving ambiguity about which creation tool to choose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only extra detail is the due_date format, which is parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.