redash-mcp

get_dashboard

Read-only

Retrieve the complete layout of a Redash dashboard, including its widgets, visualizations, and underlying queries. Use the returned IDs to modify the dashboard with add_widget.

Instructions

Get a dashboard's full layout. Behavior: returns the dashboard's id, name, slug, and every widget, each with its linked visualization (id, name, type) and the query behind it (id, name). Usage: find the dashboard id or slug with list_dashboards; use the returned visualization/query ids to understand or extend the dashboard with add_widget.

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_or_slug": "<dashboard_id_or_slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dashboard_id_or_slug`	Yes	Dashboard ID or slug to fetch (from list_dashboards)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.2.0Jul 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / dashboard_id_or_slug / description

Previous value: -"Dashboard ID or slug (from list_dashboards)"New value: +"Dashboard ID or slug to fetch (from list_dashboards)"

First observedv0.1.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes the returned fields (id, name, slug, widgets with visualization and query details), complementing the readOnlyHint annotation without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, one for purpose and behavior, one for usage; no redundant information.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description covers behavior, usage, and what to do with the result completely.

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 already fully describes the parameter; the description reinforces its source (from list_dashboards) but adds little beyond that.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a dashboard's full layout, distinguishing it from listing tools (list_dashboards) and modification tools (add_widget).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly advises to get the dashboard ID or slug via list_dashboards, and suggests using returned IDs to extend with add_widget, providing good context.

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