Retrieve the dashboards your API key can access, including shared and owned boards, with names, filters, and tiles for reporting and navigation.
The dashboards this key can open (shared boards and its own; admins see all): name, filters, tiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result set is permission-filtered by API key, includes shared and owned boards, and is unrestricted for admins. It also names the returned fields (name, filters, tiles). It omits ordering/pagination and never explicitly says the call is read-only, though 'can open' strongly implies it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and the returned fields listed after the colon. No filler, nothing to cut.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, knowing the permission-filtering rule and the three returned fields is enough to call it and interpret results. Ordering and pagination behavior are the only meaningful gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource and scope: dashboards visible to the current key, with the visibility rule for shared/own/admin spelled out. It is clearly a list operation in contrast to conduyt_get_dashboard or conduyt_create_dashboard, though it never names those siblings or uses an explicit 'list' verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before get_dashboard/run_dashboard, and the visibility scope ('this key', 'admins see all') hints at when results differ. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.