miro-mcp-server

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Remove Tag'), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tag stays on the board for reuse (clarifying the effect) and references an alternative for deletion. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarification and usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (3 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context adequately, with no need to explain return values due to the output schema.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Board ID'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Remove a tag from a sticky note or card') and resource ('tag'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'miro_delete_tag' by explaining that the tag remains on the board for reuse. This provides precise differentiation and avoids tautology.

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 includes explicit guidance with 'USE WHEN' examples ('remove the Urgent tag', 'untag this card', 'take off the Done label'), which clearly indicate when to use this tool. It also names an alternative ('miro_delete_tag') for when not to use it, providing complete context for selection.

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