Creates a syntax-highlighted code block widget on a Miro board at specified coordinates, letting you place formatted code with optional language, title, size, and line numbers.
Create a code widget (syntax-highlighted code block). EXPERIMENTAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| parent_frame_id | No | ||
| line_numbers_visible | 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 discloses that the widget is experimental and syntax-highlighted, but says nothing about permissions, coordinate system, reversibility, default sizing, or whether language is auto-detected from the code.
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 two terse lines with no filler and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and the standalone 'EXPERIMENTAL.' line is vague rather than informative.
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, but for a 10-parameter creation mutation with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits essential calling context: coordinate space, parent frame behavior, and permission requirements.
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% across 10 parameters, so every parameter relies on title alone. The description adds no meaning for x/y positioning, board_id, parent_frame_id, width/height, language, line_numbers_visible, or optional defaults, leaving all semantics 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a code widget') and the parenthetical clarifies the artifact ('syntax-highlighted code block'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_code_widget or list_code_widgets, but the 'create' verb and resource name make the distinction inferable.
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 versus create_text, create_card, or create_embed, and no stated prerequisites such as required board membership or permissions. 'EXPERIMENTAL' is a warning flag, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.