List the dashboards available to this account, most-used first, with title, folder path and 90-day run counts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_dashboards"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| search | No | Optional title substring filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered by usage ('most-used first') and the 90-day run-count window, which the agent could not infer from structured fields.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with ordering and payload fields trailing efficiently. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, folder path, run counts) and the sort order. It stops short of explaining pagination or the limit parameter, which is the main remaining gap for a list tool.
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 only 50% (limit is undocumented in the schema), and the description mentions neither limit nor search nor the default of 25. It therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the dashboards'), scopes it ('available to this account'), and states ordering and returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from run_dashboard/run_dashboard_tile, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to run_dashboard as the follow-up step once a dashboard is chosen. Usage is only inferable from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.