Pingstack

Update dashboard

update_dashboard

DestructiveIdempotent

Change a custom dashboard's name or display settings and return the updated dashboard. Only the settings sent change; the rest keep their values. It doesn't touch the dashboard's checks or sections, and it doesn't publish or unpublish. On a public dashboard the change shows on its status page right away. Overview can't be edited, and its id returns not_found, as does an unknown id. A setting the dashboard doesn't have returns invalid_arguments naming it, and a name another dashboard uses returns validation_failed; neither changes anything. Returns the dashboard's id, name, settings, whether it's public and its public links.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "dashboard": "<dashboard>"
    },
    "name": "update_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Dashboard id (dash_…).
`dashboard`	Yes	Settings to change. Omitted settings keep their values.

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.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('Only the settings sent change'), side effects on public status pages, the Overview/not_found special case, and the exact failure modes (invalid_arguments, validation_failed) with the guarantee that failures change nothing. This is the kind of detail an agent needs before attempting a destructive mutation, especially since destructiveHint=true is otherwise unexplained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and partial-update rule, then error cases and return values in logical order. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the final return-value sentence is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists.

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 nested-object mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers side effects, partial-change semantics, reserved resources, error conditions, and atomicity. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitted settings keep their values, and a supplied setting the dashboard doesn't have is rejected with invalid_arguments naming it — clarifying the nested-object merge semantics that the schema alone leaves ambiguous.

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 ('Change a custom dashboard's name or display settings') and immediately draws boundaries against sibling concerns: it doesn't touch checks or sections and doesn't publish or unpublish. An agent can distinguish it from update_dashboard_section, publish_dashboard, and unpublish_dashboard without opening their schemas.

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 clear qualifying conditions — only for name/display settings, not for checks, sections, or publishing — which effectively tells the agent when not to use it. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use instead, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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?