Privatrak

Create a dashboard

create_dashboard

Create an empty dashboard, then fill it with add_widget. Uses a dashboards slot, and every dashboard has its own widget slots (get_project slots_left). Pass run_id from start_setup_run so this undoes together with the rest of the setup; leave it out (never "") to start a new chat run, whose run_id is returned and should go on every later change.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Dashboard name.
`run_id`	No	The setup run this change belongs to, from start_setup_run. Omit to start a new chat run (its id is returned).
`project`	No	Project ID, from list_projects. Required when this connection covers more than one project; may be left out when it covers one (and with an API key, which belongs to one project).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent nature is already covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the call consumes a dashboards quota slot, each dashboard carries its own widget slots (with get_project slots_left as the check), and run_id controls whether the change is grouped into an undoable setup run.

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 create-then-fill workflow, which is the most important thing to know. The rest is one long sentence packed with parentheticals, which is dense but every clause carries information (quota slot, widget slots, run_id semantics, empty-string trap).

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes that a new chat run's run_id is returned and should be carried into later changes. Quota and undo behavior are covered. What is not addressed is whether the created dashboard is immediately visible or requires a subsequent read, but that is a minor gap for a simple creation tool.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it warns that run_id must be omitted, 'never ""', and explains the undo-grouping consequence of passing it. The name and project parameters are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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+resource ('Create an empty dashboard') and immediately distinguishes this tool from the sibling that finishes the job ('then fill it with add_widget'). An agent can tell it apart from list_dashboards, get_dashboard, and delete_dashboard without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear routing context: this is the entry point of a two-step workflow, and it names add_widget as the follow-up and start_setup_run as the source of run_id. It explains the run_id decision (pass it to join an existing setup, omit it to start a new chat run) but does not state any when-not-to-use condition.

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

All Privatrak 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?