miro-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the requirement for a local file ('file must exist on the local filesystem'), the alternative for remote images, and the voice-friendly response format. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths, board permissions) or rate limits, 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, parameters, notes, related tools, voice-friendly response), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers necessary information in a compact format.

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 (6 parameters, 2 required), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter context, behavioral notes, and sibling differentiation, leaving no significant gaps for agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying file format support ('Supports: png, jpg, jpeg, gif, webp, svg') and noting that file_path is 'Absolute path to the image file on disk', reinforcing the schema. It also lists all parameters with brief context, though it doesn't provide deep semantic insights beyond the schema.

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 ('Upload a local image file') and resource ('to a Miro board'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like miro_upload_document for documents and miro_create_image for remote images. It explicitly names the tool's scope and differentiates it 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 usage guidance with 'USE WHEN' examples (e.g., 'upload this image'), clear file type specifications (png, jpg, gif, webp, svg), and named alternatives (miro_upload_document for documents, miro_create_image for remote images). It also includes exclusion criteria ('The file must exist on the local filesystem').

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