Retrieve a single code widget from a Miro board using its board ID and item ID. Use this experimental action to fetch code widget details for inspection or processing.
Get one code widget. EXPERIMENTAL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes |
| 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. It discloses only 'EXPERIMENTAL' instability and does not mention read-only behavior, permissions, or error handling for invalid board/item IDs.
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 EXPERIMENTAL warning is useful and every sentence earns its place. The description is sparse, but it is not padded or repetitive.
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. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, key call details are missing: which IDs are needed, what a code widget is, and what happens on invalid input.
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 both required parameters (board_id and item_id) are entirely unmentioned. The description does not clarify what each identifier refers to or how they relate to a code widget.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one code widget'), making clear this retrieves a single widget rather than listing. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_code_widgets, though no sibling is named.
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 is given on when to use this versus list_code_widgets, get_item, or other retrieval siblings. Only an implied single-item retrieval context is present, and 'EXPERIMENTAL' does not aid tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.