Modify an embedded item on a Miro board by updating its URL, title, dimensions, position, display mode, or parent frame.
Update an embed item's data, position or parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| preview_url | No | ||
| provider_url | No | ||
| provider_name | 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 at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation but never states that this is a partial update where omitted/null fields are left unchanged, whether the URL change re-renders or resets embed metadata, or whether re-parenting a frame has side effects. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a mutating tool.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate density.
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?
A mutating tool with 14 parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations is described in nine words. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the update semantics, permission expectations, and field meanings are all missing for a fairly complex call.
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 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. Its phrase 'data, position or parent' only loosely groups the fields (url/title/description/preview_url/provider_* vs. x/y/width/height vs. parent_frame_id) and adds no meaning for mode, x/y semantics, or the required board_id/item_id pair, which is at least evident from the schema.
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 (embed item) plus the three aspect groups being modified (data, position, parent). This separates it from create_embed and from unrelated update tools such as update_card or update_shape. It does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with, so it stops 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 versus create_embed or a full replace-style tool, no prerequisites (e.g. must the embed already exist, must board/item be in the same workspace), and no mention of what happens to fields that are omitted. The agent must infer everything about invocation conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.