list_dashboards
Retrieve a paginated list of Redash dashboards, filterable by search keyword.
Instructions
List dashboards in Redash.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search keyword | |
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No | Page size (max 100) |
Retrieve a paginated list of Redash dashboards, filterable by search keyword.
List dashboards in Redash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Search keyword | |
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No | Page size (max 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only. The description adds no additional behavioral details, such as sorting, pagination behavior, or field inclusion. It relies entirely on annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is positive, but it omits critical details. It earns a middle score for brevity without sacrificing too much, though it sacrifices clarity.
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?
Given no output schema and three parameters, the description should explain return structure and pagination. It provides no contextual completeness, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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?
With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds no value beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'search' parameter's behavior or the effect of 'page' vs 'page_size', which would help an agent.
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 'List dashboards in Redash' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_dashboard' and 'create_dashboard' by using 'list', but lacks any detail on scope or filtering.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_dashboard' for a single dashboard or 'search' filtering. No usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/seob717/redash-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server