Pingstack

Add check to dashboard

attach_check_to_dashboard

Idempotent

Add one check, or up to 100 at once, to a custom dashboard, outside any section. Checks already there are unchanged. Overview isn't a custom dashboard; it always shows every check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "dashboard_id": "<dashboard_id>"
    },
    "name": "attach_check_to_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`check_id`	No	One check to add (check_…). Use this or check_ids.
`check_ids`	No	Several checks to add, up to 100. Use this or check_id.
`dashboard_id`	Yes	Dashboard id (dash_…).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`check_id`	No
`check_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / check_id / description

Previous value: -"Check id (check_…)."New value: +"One check to add (check_…). Use this or check_ids."

addedInput schema / properties / check_ids

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Several checks to add, up to 100. Use this or check_id.",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array",
+  "uniqueItems": true
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "dashboard_id",
-  "check_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "dashboard_id"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / check_ids

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "check_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "check_ids"
+]

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real context by stating that existing checks are left unchanged and that the operation targets root-level placement outside sections. It does not address what happens on a duplicate add (implied by idempotentHint) or where new checks land in the order, but the meaningful state effects are disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and cardinality, then the placement rule, then the exclusion. Every clause carries information; none is filler.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage, a fully documented schema, and an output schema, the description covers cardinality, placement, existing-state preservation, and the invalid-target case. The one gap is ordering — where the newly attached checks appear relative to existing ones — which matters for a dashboard layout tool but is minor given sibling reorder_dashboard_checks exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents check_id, check_ids, and dashboard_id including the 'use this or that' mutual exclusion. The description echoes the one-versus-100 cardinality and adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add one check... to a custom dashboard') and immediately bounds the scope: outside any section, custom dashboards only. The add-versus-detach distinction is unambiguous against the sibling detach_check_from_dashboard, and the 'outside any section' clause separates it from the section-level tools.

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?

Gives a clear positive condition (custom dashboard) and an explicit exclusion ('Overview isn't a custom dashboard; it always shows every check'), which is the kind of when-not guidance most definitions lack. It stops short of naming the removal alternative (detach_check_from_dashboard) or warning about the section-versus-root placement tradeoff against create_dashboard_section.

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

All Pingstack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?