Pingstack

Create dashboard

create_dashboard

Idempotent

Create a private custom dashboard, optionally with up to 100 checks already on it. Requires an idempotency key; repeating the call with the same key returns the first dashboard. A plan limit returns quota_exceeded and nothing is created. The new dashboard is private until it's published. Returns the dashboard's id, name and display settings.

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": "<dashboard>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "create_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`check_ids`	No	Checks to put on the new dashboard, up to 100. Needs the dashboards:assign permission.
`dashboard`	Yes	The new dashboard's name and display settings.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Unique key for this create, such as a UUID. Repeating a request with the same key and arguments returns the first result instead of creating a duplicate.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`public`	Yes
`default`	Yes
`editable`	Yes
`settings`	Yes
`domain_url`	Yes
`public_url`	Yes
`domain_wallboard_url`	Yes
`public_wallboard_url`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / check_ids

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Checks to put on the new dashboard, up to 100. Needs the dashboards:assign permission.",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array",
+  "uniqueItems": true
+}

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior, and the description goes well beyond that: it states the atomicity guarantee for quota_exceeded ('nothing is created'), the default private visibility, the 100-check ceiling, and the duplicate-suppression semantics of the key. This is exactly the mutation context an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Sentences are dense and front-loaded, moving from what is created to the key requirement to failure mode to visibility. The closing line about returned id, name, and display settings is largely redundant given the output schema, so one sentence does not fully earn 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?

For a three-parameter create tool with a nested object, the description covers prerequisites, idempotency, failure behavior, visibility defaults, and the check cap. With an output schema present and full schema coverage, no material gap remains for an agent to call this 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% and the nested dashboard object is documented field by field, so the schema carries most of the weight. The description reinforces the check_ids cap and idempotency-key behavior but adds no semantics the schema does not already contain.

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 ('Create a private custom dashboard') and adds scope detail that separates it from siblings like update_dashboard or publish_dashboard: the new dashboard starts private and may carry up to 100 checks. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It explains prerequisites (idempotency key required) and the plan-limit outcome, and the 'private until published' line implies that publishing is a separate step. It never explicitly says when to use this versus update_dashboard, attach_check_to_dashboard, or publish_dashboard, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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?