Looker MCP Server

generate_embed_url

Create an embeddable SSO URL for Looker content so viewers can access dashboards, Looks, or explores without needing their own Looker login.

Instructions

Generate an embeddable SSO URL for Looker content (dashboards, Looks, or explores). The URL includes authentication so the viewer does not need separate Looker credentials.

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": {
      "target_url": "<target_url>"
    },
    "name": "generate_embed_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target_url`	Yes	Looker content URL path (e.g. '/dashboards/123')
`session_length`	No	Session duration in seconds
`force_logout_login`	No	Force new login session

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.20.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the URL includes authentication, implying a safe read-like operation. However, it does not detail any prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects beyond generating a URL.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and scope, then adding a key benefit. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and why it is useful. It could mention caller permissions or rate limits, but the current information is sufficient for an AI to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which already sufficiently defines target_url, session_length, and force_logout_login.

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 it generates an embeddable SSO URL for Looker content, specifying the types (dashboards, Looks, explores) and highlighting authentication. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_url and run_dashboard.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and benefit (embedded authentication) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The context is clear enough for an AI to infer appropriate usage.

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