Looker MCP Server

list_dashboards

Find Looker dashboards by filtering on title, folder ID, or limiting the number of results.

Instructions

Search for dashboards by title, description, or other criteria.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_dashboards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Filter by title (partial match)
`folder_id`	No	Filter by folder ID
`limit`	No	Maximum results

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.20.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'search', but does not state whether the tool is read-only, supports pagination, or has rate limits. The name 'list' implies a read action, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, the phrase 'or other criteria' is vague and could be removed for tighter clarity. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description does not explain default behavior (e.g., returns all dashboards if no filters) or mention that an output schema exists. For a list tool with optional parameters, more context about result format and default results is needed for completeness.

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 descriptions already fully cover the three parameters (title, folder_id, limit). The description adds vague 'other criteria', which does not provide concrete additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage, but no extra value added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for dashboards by title, description, or other criteria. It explicitly names the resource (dashboards) and action (search), making its purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_content', which may also search dashboards.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_content', 'run_dashboard', or 'list_looks'. There are no exclusions or context for preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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