preset-mcp

disable_embedded_dashboard

Disable embedding for a dashboard by revoking its embed UUID, preventing external application access. Use dry_run to preview the action.

Instructions

Disable embedding for a dashboard.

This revokes the embed UUID and prevents the dashboard from being embedded in external applications.

Args: dashboard_id: The dashboard ID to disable embedding for. dry_run: If True, preview the action without executing.

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": "disable_embedded_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dashboard_id`	Yes
`dry_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the action (revoke, prevent embedding) and the dry_run behavior. However, it does not mention whether the action is reversible, required permissions, or other side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and could be more detailed.

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?

The description is lean, with two short paragraphs and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the description covers the core action and parameters, it lacks information about reversibility, authorization, or return values. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but behavioral completeness is moderate.

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?

The description explains both parameters: dashboard_id as the target and dry_run as a preview option. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'disable' and the resource 'embedded dashboard', and explains the effect ('revokes the embed UUID', 'prevents embedding'). It distinguishes from siblings like enable_embedded_dashboard.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it compare with alternative tools like enable_embedded_dashboard or get_embedded_dashboard. Usage is implied but not guided.

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

Deploy Server