Skip to main content
Glama
hnegi01

fes-mcp

by hnegi01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

dashboard.get_dashboards

dashboard_get_dashboards
Read-only

Retrieve dashboards visible to the authenticated user, including owned and shared items. Use this to list accessible dashboards without admin privileges.

Instructions

Retrieve dashboards visible to the authenticated user. Sends GET /api/v1/dashboards, which returns dashboards the current user owns or has been shared to — as opposed to get_all_dashboards, which uses the admin endpoint and requires elevated access. Returns: list[dict[str, Any]] | dict[str, Any] List of dashboard objects on success, or {"error": "..."} on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoSubset of fields to include in the response (for example ``["oid", "title", "owner"]``). When omitted, all fields are returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the exact HTTP method and endpoint, the visibility semantics (owned or shared), and the return shape including the error format. This is strong 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by a concise comparison to a sibling and a return-type note.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, its scope, its endpoint, its return type, and its error behavior. With only one optional parameter and no output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The single parameter 'fields' is already fully documented in the schema with an example and behavior when omitted. With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description does not need to add more, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve dashboards visible to the authenticated user' via GET /api/v1/dashboards. It explicitly contrasts with get_all_dashboards, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly states when to use this tool versus dashboard_get_all_dashboards: the former uses the user-facing endpoint, while the latter uses the admin endpoint and requires elevated access. This gives an agent an explicit routing rule.

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