Looker MCP Server

update_look

Update a Look's title, description, or move it to a different folder.

Instructions

Update a Look's metadata (title, description, folder).

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": {
      "look_id": "<look_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_look"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`look_id`	Yes	ID of the Look to update
`title`	No	New title
`description`	No	New description
`folder_id`	No	Move to a different folder

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.20.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is an update, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, partial update behavior, side effects, or required permissions. The description is too sparse for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., existence of the Look), error conditions, or side effects. The agent may not have enough information to use this tool safely without additional knowledge.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the three updatable fields but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify constraints, relationships, or other semantics that would help the agent use parameters correctly.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('a Look'), and the specific metadata fields ('title, description, folder'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_look, delete_look, and run_look.

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 implies usage when updating metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives like create_look or delete_look for related operations.

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