Modify an app card's content, style, position, or parent on a Miro board to keep card information and layout current.
Update an app card's data, style, position or parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| card_theme | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| border_shape | 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 for a mutation tool. It does not explain partial-update semantics, whether omitted/null fields are preserved or cleared, what permissions are required, or what happens when moving a card to another parent.
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 filler, so it is appropriately concise. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than precision, especially given the 13-parameter mutation surface.
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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description still should explain update semantics, parameter roles, and any behavioral constraints needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 13 parameters, so the description must compensate but only loosely groups fields into data, style, position, and parent. It does not map parameters such as x/y/width/height, status, fields, card_theme, or parent_frame_id, nor does it explain the required board_id/item_id or the meaning of null defaults.
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 (update) and resource (app card), plus the broad editable areas: data, style, position, and parent. It is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling update_card or from create_app_card.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of update_card, create_app_card, or other update tools. It also does not state prerequisites or constraints, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.