Skip to main content
Glama

List sections of a dashboard view

dashboards_get_view_sections
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a sections-type dashboard view’s real section indexes, headings, and card counts, plus its config hash, so you can safely add, update, or remove cards afterward.

Instructions

List the sections of one type: sections view, with real indexes, headings and card counts.

Resolves the view via _load_view (dashboard config or default- dashboard view path), requires it to be a sections view, and reports each section's position, a fallback-derived heading (its heading card, or title), and card count.

Use when: reading current section indexes before calling dashboards_add_card_to_section / dashboards_update_card_in_section / dashboards_remove_card_from_section, or before re-sending expected_config_hash to one of them after their previous call changed it. Returns: {status, url_path, view_index, view_title, view_path, sections: [{section_index, heading, card_count}, ...], config_hash} — pass config_hash back as expected_config_hash to dashboards_add_card_to_section / _update_card_in_section / _remove_card_from_section / _add_section_to_view to detect a dashboard change before your write lands. Errors: raises ValueError when the view can't be resolved (bad index/path) or is not a type: sections view.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
url_pathNoDashboard url_path (e.g. 'map') or a view path in the default dashboard (e.g. 'living-room'). Omit for the default dashboard's first view.
view_indexNoZero-based view index; required when url_path names a dashboard rather than a view path. Omit when url_path already identifies the view.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.25.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes further: it explains view resolution via `_load_view`, the requirement that the view be `type: sections`, heading fallback derivation, and that `ValueError` is raised on bad index/path or wrong view type. That is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 purpose, then usage, returns, and errors in a scannable structure. Slightly long — the config_hash purpose is restated across the returns and paragraph sections — but every block carries operational value.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers resolution prerequisites, error modes, and how the returned config_hash feeds downstream write tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 resolution semantics not in the schema: url_path can be a dashboard url_path or a default-dashboard view path, and the view_index requirement depends on that. This clarifies the interaction between the two otherwise-optional parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List the sections of one `type: sections` view.' It also specifies what is reported (indexes, headings, card counts), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling writers like dashboards_add_card_to_section and dashboards_add_section_to_view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It contains an explicit 'Use when' clause naming the exact conditions (reading current section indexes before add/update/remove card, or before re-sending expected_config_hash) and names the downstream sibling tools. No inference required.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools