Create a standalone text item on a Miro board from simple HTML content, with optional color, size, alignment, rotation, and frame placement.
Create a standalone text item. content accepts simple HTML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| rotation | No | ||
| font_size | No | ||
| text_align | No | ||
| font_family | No | ||
| 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 the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about required positioning behavior (x/y are mandatory), what happens when parent_frame_id is set versus omitted, whether the item is auto-sized to content, default styling applied, or what permissions are needed for a write operation.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity is appropriate structurally, though in this case it reflects under-specification rather than discipline, which is penalized in other dimensions.
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 mutation tool with 11 undocumented parameters, zero annotation coverage, and no parameter descriptions, two sentences are far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the spatial/style parameters and the frame-versus-standalone distinction should have been covered.
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 11 parameters, and the description only clarifies that content accepts simple HTML. It leaves unexplained the semantics of x/y coordinate space, units and defaults for font_size, rotation, and width, the color format, and the relationship between standalone placement and parent_frame_id.
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 standalone text item"), with "standalone" hinting at independence from other items. However, it never distinguishes this from sibling creators like create_sticky_note or create_card, which also create free-placed text-bearing items on a board.
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 indication of when to choose create_text over create_sticky_note, create_card, or create_doc, nor any prerequisites such as required board access or coordinate space. The only guidance is the implicit "standalone" in the first sentence, which is not enough to route an agent among several near-identical creators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.