Retrieve connectors on a Miro board with cursor-based pagination to inspect relationships between items. Specify a board ID and optionally limit or cursor for paged results.
List connectors on a board (cursor-paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| 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 burden. It does disclose pagination behavior ('cursor-paginated'), which is useful context beyond the schema. However it does not state that it's a safe read-only operation, nor any permission/auth requirements or ordering of results.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to the parameter and behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.
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. But for a tool with a required board_id and undocumented limit/cursor at 0% schema coverage, the description should specify how limit interacts with paging and what board_id refers to. It is adequate but has clear 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. 'Cursor-paginated' hints at the cursor parameter's purpose, but limit (default 50) and the required board_id are given no semantic explanation beyond their titles. The description leaves most parameter meaning to inference.
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+resource+scope: 'List connectors on a board'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_connector (single) and delete/create/update_connector, without needing to name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: when you need all connectors on a given board, use this. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to get_connector or board export alternatives; the agent must infer this from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.