Search Miro board items by text query to find matching titles or content across a board. Returns compact matches after scanning up to a configurable number of pages.
Search items by text content (client-side scan of titles/content).
Scans up to max_pages x 50 items. Returns compact matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| case_sensitive | 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?
With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing that this is a client-side scan, that it examines up to max_pages x 50 items, and that matches are compact. It omits explicit read-only confirmation and edge-case behavior, but the core behavioral traits are unusually well surfaced.
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, front-loaded with the core search behavior and then the scan limit. There is no filler, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys an important implementation detail.
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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin on parameters. It handles return shape adequately because an output schema exists, but the unexplained type and case_sensitive parameters leave 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 carry parameter meaning. It explains query and gives useful semantics for max_pages, but says nothing about type, board_id, or case_sensitive, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource: search items by text content, with the added detail that the scan is client-side over titles/content. That is enough to tell it apart from list_items and get_items_by_tag in practice, although it does not explicitly name the alternatives.
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?
The text-search framing implies when this tool is appropriate, especially versus listing tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. The scan cap and compact return are useful context, but not usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.