Edit a Miro sticky note's content, style, position, or parent frame using board and item IDs; supports color, alignment, shape, and size changes.
Update a sticky note's content, style, position or parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| shape | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| board_id | Yes | ||
| fill_color | No | ||
| text_align | No | ||
| parent_frame_id | No | ||
| text_align_vertical | 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 burden for a mutation tool. It does not state whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged or reset to defaults, what permissions are needed, or whether moving a note into a frame has side effects.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and mutable aspects front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, even though it leaves gaps the other dimensions penalize.
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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin; the critical partial-update contract is unstated. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from explaining parameter behavior.
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 11 parameters; only board_id and item_id are required and all others are nullable. The phrase 'content, style, position or parent' loosely maps to content, fill_color/text_align/shape/width, x/y, and parent_frame_id, but nothing explains null semantics or how width interacts with shape.
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?
A specific verb plus resource ('Update a sticky note'), and it names the four aspects that can change (content, style, position, parent). That distinguishes it from create_sticky_note, but not from siblings like update_item_position or bulk_update_items, which could also move/parent items.
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?
No guidance on when to use this instead of bulk_update_items, update_item_position, or update_frame for reparenting. The agent must infer the choice 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.