unpublish_dashboardMake a dashboard private again. The existing share link stops working immediately, and any shared username and password are cleared. Widgets and data are untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dashboardId | Yes | Dashboard id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete behavioral consequences: the share link stops working immediately, shared username and password are cleared, and widgets/data remain untouched. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, adding valuable context about side effects.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with two purposeful sentences. Every sentence adds distinct information: the main action, immediate access consequences, and reassurance that data is unaffected. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and helpful annotations, this description is complete. It explains the important side effects an agent must know before invoking it, and nothing critical is missing.
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 100% because dashboardId is documented as 'Dashboard id.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully covers the single parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make a dashboard private again.' This is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from related tools like publish_dashboard by describing the inverse action, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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?
The opening sentence implies when to use the tool: when a dashboard should be made private again. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as publish_dashboard or delete_dashboard. Usage context is implied rather than directly instructed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.