Add a frame to a Miro board at specified coordinates, with optional size, fill color, custom format, and visibility control for child content.
Create a frame. show_content hides/shows children on the canvas.
format accepts custom; frame type defaults to freeform.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| fill_color | No | ||
| show_content | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds limited context about show_content hiding/shows children and format accepting custom, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, whether the frame is empty or mutable, or other mutation behavior.
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 very short, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, it is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter mutation tool, and the backtick formatting is slightly noisy.
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?
For a creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It covers only a couple of behavioral details and omits most parameter semantics and side-effect context; an output schema does exist, so return values need not be explained.
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 9 parameters. The description explains show_content, format, and a default frame type, but leaves board_id, x, y, title, width, height, and fill_color without added meaning. The mention of frame 'type' is also not present in the input schema.
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 frame.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish frames from sibling creation tools like create_shape, create_card, or create_group.
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 explicit guidance on when to use create_frame versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.