Add a PDF or other document to a Miro board directly from a URL at specified coordinates, so you can place linked files without uploading them manually.
Add a document item (PDF, etc.) to the board from a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| document_url | Yes | ||
| 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 burden. It does not say whether the server fetches the URL, whether the URL must be publicly reachable or authenticated, whether the call blocks until the file is processed, or what limits apply to file types and sizes.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but for a write operation with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unknown: URL fetch semantics, placement behavior, and the difference 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% across 6 parameters, and the description only gestures at the URL and the board. Required x/y positioning, the optional title override, and parent_frame_id placement are entirely 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?
Names a specific verb+resource: adding a document item (PDF, etc.) to a board, sourced from a URL. This distinguishes it reasonably from create_image_from_url, but it does not differentiate from near-neighbours like create_doc, upload_document, or update_document.
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 rather than upload_document (local file) or create_doc. An agent must guess from the name that the URL-based variant is the right one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.