create_dashboardCreate a shareable dashboard. Returns {id, token} — the token grants write access via PUT /api/dashboards, so save it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| config | Yes | Dashboard config object, e.g. {areas, categories, defaultTab} |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "token": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the returned token grants write access via PUT /api/dashboards and must be saved — a security-relevant trait absent from the annotations and schema.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the critical return-value caveat. Every clause earns its place, with no padding or restatement of the title.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it helpfully clarifies the token's privilege. Annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is that the 'name' parameter and dashboard-sharing behavior are left opaque.
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 only 50% (the 'name' parameter has no description and only a maxLength constraint), yet the description says nothing about the meaning, format, or constraints of name or config. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a shareable dashboard'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_dashboard or contrast read vs. create, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Create a shareable dashboard' — an agent can infer this is the write counterpart to get_dashboard. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for retrieving or updating an existing dashboard.
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.