miro-mcp-server

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Share Board'), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about roles (viewer, commenter, editor) and the default (viewer), which goes beyond basic function. However, it does not mention permissions needed, rate limits, or whether this sends an invitation email, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 role details and a voice-friendly example. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the voice-friendly part, while helpful, could be considered slightly extraneous for pure tool definition clarity.

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 (sharing with email and roles), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the action, roles, and default, but could improve by mentioning if this triggers an email invitation or any side effects, though annotations are minimal.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (board_id, email, role, message) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by listing role options and the default, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies. 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 ('Share a board with someone by email') and resource ('board'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'miro_remove_board_member' or 'miro_list_board_members'. It includes the verb 'share' and specifies the mechanism (by email), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 implies usage for sharing boards via email with role-based access, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'miro_update_board_member' for modifying existing members). It provides context about roles and default settings, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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