Adds a text node to a Miro mind map, attaching it under a chosen parent node or extending the root structure when no parent is given.
Create a mind map node (text type). EXPERIMENTAL.
With parent_node_id the node becomes a child of that node;
without it Miro creates/extends the root structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| parent_node_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 add the material disclosure that the endpoint is EXPERIMENTAL, which is valuable and non-obvious. Beyond that it omits required scopes, whether a root node is auto-created, and what errors arise if board_id or parent_node_id are invalid – gaps that matter for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short sentences with the action and the EXPERIMENTAL caveat front-loaded, no repetition. The second sentence's line break is cosmetic waste but the content density is high.
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 described, and the parent/root distinction covers the central call decision. For an experimental mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation, however, the description does not give enough to invoke it confidently – coordinate behavior for x/y/width and required permissions are unaddressed.
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% and there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It explains only parent_node_id semantics; content, board_id, x, y, and width remain bare schema titles with no format, units, coordinate system, or width constraints given.
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 specific verb and resource ('Create a mind map node (text type)') and names the node subtype, which separates it from create_text and create_sticky_note. It stops short of comparing itself to those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer that mind-map nodes are a distinct item class.
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?
The description explains the one meaningful branch in usage – supplying parent_node_id vs. omitting it to extend the root structure – which is real guidance. It never says when to choose this over create_text/create_sticky_note, nor what preconditions (existing mind map, board state) apply, leaving usage largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.