OrionBI

Read a dashboard's spec

dashboard_get

Read-only

Return a dashboard you own as the spec you would send to dashboard_publish — every source named rather than identified — so you can change one panel and publish it back under the same name. Also the live version's number and message, the warnings it published with, and what each query returned (columns, row count). A dashboard shared with you to EDIT comes back the same way, for dashboard_patch; a query reading data only its owner can use keeps its source id and is listed in ownerOnlyQueries — keep those exactly as they are. For one shared with you to view it returns the name, address, audience and panel titles, never the SQL. Pass version to read an earlier version's spec. dashboard is a name, or a /d/owner/slug path.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dashboard": "<dashboard>"
    },
    "name": "dashboard_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	No	A version number. Omit for the version that is live.
`dashboard`	Yes	Name of the dashboard, from dashboard_list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds far more: the return payload includes the live version's number and message, publish warnings, and per-query results (columns, row count). Crucially it discloses the `ownerOnlyQueries` edge case and instructs to keep those source ids untouched — behavior no annotation or schema conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the primary outcome and the publish round-trip, then progressively narrows to edit-shared, view-shared, and owner-only cases. Dense and slightly run-on in the middle clause, but nearly every clause carries a distinct, actionable fact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating the spec, version metadata, warnings, query results, and the three access-mode variants. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly — or to interpret what comes back — appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `dashboard` accepts either a name or a /d/owner/slug path (the schema only mentions a name from dashboard_list), and version selects an earlier version's spec rather than rejecting non-live reads. Minor loss only because version semantics are partly duplicated by the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Return a dashboard you own as the spec you would send to dashboard_publish' — and immediately frames the round-trip intent (change one panel, publish back under the same name). This distinguishes it from dashboard_read (viewing) and dashboard_patch (patching) without the agent needing to open other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent by access mode: owner and edit-shared dashboards return the full spec 'for dashboard_patch', view-shared ones return only name/address/audience/panel titles, and earlier versions are reached via the version parameter. Alternatives (dashboard_publish, dashboard_patch) are named with the condition that selects them.

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

All OrionBI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?