Skip to main content
Glama

CustomerDashboard

by io.customerdashboard

Delete a view

delete_view
Destructive

Permanently delete a view and every widget on it. Calling this without confirm returns a preview. This cannot be undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewIdYesView id.
confirmNoSet to true only after the user has seen what will be deleted and explicitly agreed. Calling without it returns a preview instead of deleting.
confirmNameNoThe exact current name of the item being deleted, copied from the preview. Required alongside confirm.
dashboardIdYesDashboard id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the cascading deletion of every widget, the irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), and the preview behavior when confirm is not set. This gives the agent critical behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the destructive scope, the second explains the preview/confirm flow, and the third emphasizes irreversibility. It is front-loaded and concise with no filler.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what will be deleted, the confirmation safeguard, and permanence. The schema handles the parameter details, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including confirm and confirmName. The description reinforces the confirm behavior but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a view and every widget on it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_widget, delete_dashboard, and update_view by stating the exact scope of destruction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool via its resource scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't say 'use delete_widget to remove only a widget.' The confirmation flow is described, but not the selection among sibling delete operations.

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

All CustomerDashboard toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource+action pair, and descriptions explicitly cross-reference related tools (e.g. update_dashboard points to set_dashboard_theme and publish_dashboard). A few pairs remain close enough to cause hesitation—set_widget_layout vs update_widget's position parameter, and get_started vs get_platform_overview—but their descriptions do separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently follow verb_noun snake_case with clear resource nouns like customer, dashboard, widget, and data_source. Minor deviations exist between add_* and create_* for creation operations, and set_* versus update_* for mutations, but the overall pattern is still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the surface is much larger than the 16-25 range that already feels heavy, and several onboarding/catalog helpers (get_started, get_platform_overview, list_plans_and_limits, list_supported_data_connectors, list_widget_types) add to the count. Each tool has a distinct job, but the set would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused sub-servers.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle coverage is strong: dashboards, views, widgets, data sources, customers, and publishing all have create/read/update/delete where relevant, plus test/preview/validation tools. Obvious gaps are customer-user management beyond create/delete (no password reset/update) and no direct way to move a widget between views, but agents can work around these.

Resources