miro-mcp-server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a retrieval operation ('Get all board content'). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what content is returned ('items by type, frame hierarchy, connectors, and tags') and providing a voice-friendly example of the output format. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds useful implementation details.

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 and efficiently organized with clear sections: purpose statement, sibling tool differentiation, usage scenarios, and voice-friendly example. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 that the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists (as indicated in context signals), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, output characteristics, and sibling differentiation, leaving no significant gaps for a read-only retrieval tool with good structured documentation.

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, the input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get all board content') and resources ('board content'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool miro_get_board_summary by stating 'For a quick summary, use miro_get_board_summary instead.' This provides clear differentiation and a specific scope for AI analysis and documentation generation.

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 usage guidelines with a 'USE WHEN' section listing specific scenarios ('analyze this board', 'generate documentation from board', 'describe everything on this board'), and explicitly names an alternative tool (miro_get_board_summary) for different use cases. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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