CustomerDashboard

Publish a dashboard

publish_dashboard

Idempotent

Publish a dashboard and return its share URL. A customer dashboard is always login-gated, so its customers sign in with the logins you created. An internal dashboard can be published as 'public' (anyone with the link) or 'protected' (one shared username and password).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`access`	No	For internal dashboards: 'public' means anyone with the link, 'protected' requires a shared username and password. Ignored for customer dashboards, which always require a per-customer login. Defaults to 'protected'.
`password`	No	Shared password, for 'protected' access. Leave empty to have one generated and returned once.
`username`	No	Shared username, for 'protected' access.
`dashboardId`	Yes	Dashboard id.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and that it is idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: publishing returns a share URL, customer dashboards are always login-gated, and internal dashboards support public/protected access. It does not fully describe all side effects, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 tight sentences deliver purpose first, followed by the access-mode distinction. There is no redundant filler, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the key return value (share URL). It also clarifies the access model, while the schema fully documents parameters. The idempotentHint annotation covers the republishing case. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the access parameter's real-world meaning: customer dashboards ignore access, while internal dashboards choose between public and protected. This supplements the enum descriptions rather than repeating them.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Publish'), the resource (dashboard), and the outcome (returns its share URL). This clearly distinguishes publishing from related siblings such as get_dashboard_share_url or unpublish_dashboard.

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 provides concrete context for when to use the tool and how access modes work: customer dashboards are always login-gated, while internal dashboards can be public or protected. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the access-mode guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All CustomerDashboard tools Inspect

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

Need Help?