Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fes-mcp

fes-mcp

by hnegi01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

dashboard.can_be_owned

dashboard_can_be_owned
Read-only

Determine if the current user can take ownership of a specific dashboard by verifying its can_be_owned status.

Instructions

Check whether a dashboard can be owned by the current user. Sends GET /api/v1/dashboards/{dashboard_id}/can_be_owned. Returns: dict[str, Any] The API response on success, or {"error": "..."} on failure.

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": "dashboard_can_be_owned"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dashboard_idYesThe dashboard ``oid`` to check.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method and a success/error return shape, but no deeper behavior such as auth requirements, failure modes, or side effects. This is useful but limited context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three concise, purposeful sentences front-load the action, then give the endpoint and return contract. There is no filler or repetition of schema annotations.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and return/error format. It is close to complete, though it omits any preconditions or ownership-transfer usage context.

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%, meaning dashboard_id is already documented as 'The dashboard oid to check.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint path, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific predicate, 'Check whether a dashboard can be owned by the current user,' and names the exact API call. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling dashboard_get_* tools, which fetch dashboards or shares rather than check ownership eligibility.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'before ownership transfer' or 'when confirming eligibility for the current user.' The only clue is 'current user,' which describes the tool's semantics rather than a usage condition.

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