Modify a Miro frame's title, visibility, fill style, size, or position using board and item IDs.
Update a frame's title, visibility, style, size or position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| fill_color | No | ||
| show_content | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged (partial vs full replace), reversibility, or what happens to frame contents when the frame is hidden. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, though it is so compressed that the field list substitutes for actual semantics.
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 a 9-parameter mutation with no annotations and no schema descriptions needs far more: which fields are optional, partial-update semantics, and targeting via board_id/item_id are all missing.
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 coverage is 0% across 9 parameters. The description loosely maps to title, show_content ('visibility'), fill_color ('style'), width/height ('size'), and x/y ('position'), but gives no format details for colors or coordinates and never mentions the required board_id/item_id that identify the target.
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 (frame) and enumerates the mutable facets: title, visibility, style, size, position. It does not reference the sibling create_frame or any other update_* tool, so an agent must infer boundaries from the name alone.
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 over create_frame, update_shape, or update_item_position, nor any stated preconditions. The agent gets an implied 'use this to change frames' and nothing more.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.