Create an image item on a Miro board from a public URL at specified coordinates, with optional title, size, and parent frame.
Create an image item from a public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| board_id | 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 full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a write operation. It says nothing about whether the source URL is fetched server-side, what happens if the URL is unreachable or non-image, what permissions are needed, or whether board_id must reference an existing board.
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 filler. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity borders on under-specification.
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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions leaves out essentials: coordinate semantics, board/frame targeting, and failure behavior for the URL.
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 7 parameters. The description only gestures at 'url' and says nothing about board_id, required x/y coordinates, optional width/title, or parent_frame_id, all of which risk misplacement or errors if used wrongly.
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 concrete verb+resource (create an image item) and adds a scoping qualifier ('from a public URL') that hints at the difference from upload_image, but never names that sibling explicitly. An agent can infer the purpose, though it must compare schemas to be sure.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus upload_image or update_image, and no prerequisites (board must exist, URL must be publicly reachable). Usage must be inferred 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.