Add a tag to a Miro board by board ID, title, and optional fill color to label and organize board content.
Create a tag. fill_color (required by Miro) is a colour name:
red, light_green, cyan, yellow, magenta, green, blue, gray, violet,
dark_green, dark_blue or black.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| fill_color | No | blue |
| 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 disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail: fill_color is "required by Miro" despite the schema showing a default and marking it optional, plus the full set of accepted values. It says nothing about permissions, duplicate-title behavior, or whether the tag is board-scoped.
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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the color detail. The long inline color list is defensible as it replaces a missing enum, though it makes the sentence slightly unwieldy.
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. The color constraint is well covered, but for a three-parameter creation tool with zero schema descriptions, the absence of any statement about board scoping, prerequisites, or duplicate handling leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly defines fill_color (enumeration plus the Miro-side requirement) but leaves title and board_id completely unexplained beyond their names, so only one of three parameters is enriched.
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 tag") in the first two words, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_tag, delete_tag, or attach_tag, but the create verb makes the distinction largely self-evident.
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 call this versus the sibling tag tools, no note that a board_id is needed to scope the tag, and no mention of what to do if a tag with that title already exists. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.