Physical Capability Cloud

update_dashboard

Modify a dashboard you own (owner-only). Replace the manifest or any metadata field; the version increments. Use this to edit a saved surface meaningfully — 'raise budgetUSD to 40', 'add a receipt window', 'make it public'. A replaced manifest must still conform to the schema and must not contain an API key. Only send the fields you want to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The id (ua_...) of the artifact to update.
`name`	No	New name.
`manifest`	No	Replacement DashboardManifest (must conform to the schema; no API key). Omit to leave the manifest unchanged.
`visibility`	No	New visibility (e.g. flip 'unlisted' -> 'public' to list it).
`composeRefs`	No	Replacement pinned ComposeRequest objects.
`description`	No	New description.
`renderedCid`	No	New rendered-HTML export CID.
`capabilityTypes`	No	Replacement capability-type tags.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`slug`	No
`manifest`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "manifest": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "slug": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "manifest"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds owner-only authorization, the version-increment side effect, manifest schema conformance plus the no-API-key constraint, and partial-update semantics ('Only send the fields you want to change'). This is exactly the behavioral context structured fields don't carry.

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 scope and constraint, and the examples efficiently convey intent. Slight redundancy with the manifest constraint restated in the schema keeps it from a 5, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 8-param mutation tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers ownership, side effects, constraints and the partial-update contract. Return values are covered by the output schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 every parameter. The description's manifest-conformance and API-key notes largely duplicate the schema text, and it adds no new syntax or format detail, so 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?

'Modify a dashboard you own' gives a specific verb+resource plus an ownership scope, and the follow-up sentence specifies that it replaces the manifest or any metadata field and bumps the version. An agent can distinguish this from save_dashboard/fork_dashboard without opening 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?

'Use this to edit a saved surface meaningfully' with three concrete examples ('raise budgetUSD to 40', 'add a receipt window', 'make it public') clearly signals the intended context. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Physical Capability Cloud 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.