miro-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description doesn't add significant behavioral context beyond what can be inferred from the tool name and annotations. The annotation only provides a title ('Create Sticky Note'), which doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure. However, it doesn't contradict the minimal annotations provided.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, alternatives, and usage examples. It's appropriately sized without wasted words. The only minor improvement would be integrating the voice-friendly example more seamlessly rather than as a separate labeled section.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 2 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, alternatives, and usage examples well. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about permissions or error handling, but the structured data helps compensate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions color options but the schema already lists them. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a sticky note') and resource ('on a Miro board'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'miro_create_sticky_grid' and 'miro_bulk_create' for different use cases. This provides precise differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives ('For multiple stickies in a grid, use miro_create_sticky_grid. For batch creation of mixed items, use miro_bulk_create'), includes usage examples ('add a sticky', 'create note saying X'), and gives a voice-friendly example. This covers both when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.