Skip to main content
Glama

Configure dashboard

configure_dashboard
Destructive

Create or update a widget on your agent dashboard. Use this to display key metrics, charts, tables, or timelines that help the user understand your work at a glance. Each call creates or updates one widget.

[write-tier — first use may require a manager's approval; a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time. Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoData rows for chart/table/list/gantt widgets. Each item is an object. - chart: [{ label: "Jan", value: 100 }, ...] - table: [{ col1: "val", col2: "val" }, ...] - list: [{ label: "Item", status: "done", detail: "..." }, ...] - gantt: [{ label: "Task", start: "2024-01-01", end: "2024-01-15", status: "active" }, ...]
titleYesDisplay title for the widget (e.g., "Monthly Revenue", "Content Pipeline")
configNoWidget configuration. Shape depends on widget_type: - metric: { value, previous_value, format ("number"|"currency"|"percent"|"text"), trend_direction ("up"|"down"|"flat"), suffix } - chart: { chart_type ("bar"|"line"|"area"), x_axis, y_axis, color } - table: { columns: [{ key, label, align }], sortable, page_size } - list: { status_field, label_field, detail_field } - gantt: { start_field, end_field, label_field, status_field } - status: { status, status_color ("green"|"amber"|"red"|"blue"|"purple"|"slate"), detail, icon_emoji } - progress: { value (0-100), target_label, current_label, color (CSS class) } - kpi_row: { kpis: [{ label, value, trend ("up"|"down"|"flat"), format }] } - progress_ring: { value (0-100), label, color (CSS color) } - activity_status: (use data array with { name, frequency, status, next_run, last_outcome }) - canvas: { html (agent-authored layout HTML — narrative/self-expression, inert: no scripts/forms/controls, max 64KB), title (optional a11y label) }
positionNoDisplay order (0 = first, higher = later). Default: 0
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
widget_idNoUUID of existing widget to update. Omit to create a new widget.
is_visibleNoWhether the widget is visible on the dashboard. Default: true
widget_typeYesType of widget to create

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful approval behavior details ('first use may require manager approval', 'just-once approval re-asks next time') and instructs the agent to call the tool on the first clear ask and not re-ask in chat. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and cardinality, followed by a clearly bracketed approval note. Every sentence earns its place; the approval note is dense but directly relevant to agent behavior. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and nested config objects, the description plus schema is largely complete: purpose, widget scope, approval flow, and input semantics are covered. The only notable gap is that it does not mention how to discover existing widget IDs for updates, though the sibling list_dashboard_widgets makes that inferable.

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

Parameters3/5

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 every parameter. The description adds only high-level context about widget types (metrics, charts, tables, timelines) but no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema provides. This is the appropriate baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or update a widget on your agent dashboard.' It also clarifies cardinality ('Each call creates or updates one widget'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dashboard_widgets and remove_dashboard_widget. This is far more specific than the tool's name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to display key metrics, charts, tables, or timelines that help the user understand work at a glance. It also provides operational guidance about write-tier approvals and not re-asking after the approval card is shown. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, such as using list_dashboard_widgets to find widget IDs before updating.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources