Modify an existing Miro board document by replacing its URL, changing its title, or moving it to a new position or parent frame.
Update a document item (replace its URL, retitle, move).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| document_url | 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. While it names the mutation types, it does not disclose whether this is a partial update (are omitted fields left unchanged?), permission requirements, or how null/default values are handled—important gaps for a mutation tool with seven parameters.
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. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse—it leaves critical parameter and behavioral details unspecified.
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, but it only loosely maps to some parameters ('URL' → document_url, 'retitle' → title, 'move' → x/y). It does not explain board_id, item_id, parent_frame_id, or clarify whether x/y represent coordinates for a move.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Update a document item') and clarifies the kinds of changes ('replace its URL, retitle, move'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like replace_doc or update_item_position, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_doc, create_doc, or update_item_position. The parenthetical hints at operations but does not state selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.