Skip to main content
Glama
mgh3326

miro-mcp

by mgh3326
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_sticky_note

Create a sticky note on a Miro board at a specified position, with optional HTML content, fill color, shape, alignment, and parent frame placement.

Instructions

Create a sticky note. content accepts simple HTML (<p>, <b>, <br/>...). fill_color is a Miro palette name (gray, light_yellow, yellow, orange, light_green, green, dark_green, cyan, light_pink, pink, violet, red, light_blue, blue, dark_blue, black).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYes
yYes
shapeNosquare
widthNo
contentYes
board_idYes
fill_colorNo
text_alignNo
parent_frame_idNo
text_align_verticalNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It mentions HTML support in content and the fill_color palette, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, whether the board must exist, how x/y positioning behaves, or what happens with parent_frame_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loads the purpose, and the two parameter notes are specific. However, it is too sparse for a 10-parameter creation tool and omits information that would make the short text more useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description only covers two parameters and does not address mutation behavior or placement semantics. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without inspecting the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains content and fill_color. It does not explain required parameters such as board_id, x, y, or optional parameters such as shape, width, text_align, text_align_vertical, and parent_frame_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a sticky note.' This is enough to distinguish it from update_sticky_note and from generic item creators such as create_shape or create_text, although the description does not explicitly call out those sibling boundaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_text, create_shape, create_card, or bulk_create_items. It also omits prerequisites such as needing an existing board and where on the board the note should be placed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools