Modify a Miro card's title, description, due date, assignee, color, theme, size, position, or parent frame using its board and item IDs.
Update a card's data, style, position or parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| card_theme | No | ||
| fill_color | No | ||
| assignee_id | No | ||
| description | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Update' but does not disclose partial-update semantics (all optional fields default to null), permission requirements, whether omitted fields remain unchanged, or what happens on invalid board/item IDs. For a 13-parameter mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness for a complex 13-parameter mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin; it omits partial-update behavior, required-field implications, and parameter meanings.
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 for 13 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely groups fields into 'data, style, position or parent' without mapping them to parameters like x, y, width, height, due_date, card_theme, fill_color, assignee_id, description, or parent_frame_id. The mapping is too vague to help an agent understand individual arguments.
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 ('Update a card') and enumerates the categories of fields it can change: data, style, position, parent. This distinguishes it reasonably from generic item updates, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like update_app_card or update_item_position.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_app_card, update_sticky_note, update_item_position, or bulk_update_items. Usage context is only implied by the word 'card'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.