CustomerDashboard

Update a widget

update_widget

Idempotent

Change a widget's title, query, visualization type, configuration, data source or position. Only the fields you pass are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No
`title`	No
`layout`	No	Position and size on the 12-column grid. Omit on create and a free slot is chosen for you.
`viewId`	Yes	View id the widget belongs to.
`widgetId`	Yes	Widget id.
`dataSourceId`	No
`visualizationType`	No
`visualizationConfig`	No	Replaces the whole configuration object, so include every key you want to keep.
`allowSharedAcrossAllCustomers`	No	Only for customer dashboards. Set true, after the user explicitly confirms, to allow a query with no per-customer filter.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds a valuable behavioral trait beyond those annotations: only the fields explicitly passed are changed, which prevents an agent from assuming whole-object replacement. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The editable-field scope is front-loaded, and the critical merge behavior is stated clearly in the second sentence.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, the description plus schema and annotations provide the essential invocation details: required IDs are in the schema, layout and configuration semantics are in the schema descriptions, and partial-update behavior is in the description. Return values are not described, but no output schema exists and the mutation side effects are adequately disclosed.

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?

With 56% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping common terms like title, query, visualization type, configuration, data source, and position to the schema's parameter names. It also states the partial-update semantics that apply to all parameters. It omits allowSharedAcrossAllCustomers, but that parameter has a detailed description in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Change') and resource ('a widget'), and enumerates the major editable fields: title, query, visualization type, configuration, data source, and position. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling set_widget_layout, but the broader field list makes the tool's scope reasonably clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_widget_layout or create_widget. The partial-update sentence explains behavior, but not selection conditions or exclusions.

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?