Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Redash MCP Server

Redash MCP Server

by suthio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_widget

Removes a widget from a Redash dashboard using its widget ID. Useful for cleaning up or reorganizing dashboard content.

Instructions

Delete a widget from a dashboard

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": {
      "widgetId": "<widgetId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widgetIdYesID of the widget to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.13

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool deletes a widget, but it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, if special permissions are required, or the consequences for the dashboard. No behavioral details beyond the basic mutation are provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that exactly captures the tool's function without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the return value or behavior in edge cases (e.g., deleting a non-existent widget), but given the simplicity, it is not entirely inadequate. However, it lacks depth that would make it complete.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter (widgetId) with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 'Delete a widget from a dashboard' uses a specific verb ('Delete'), identifies the resource ('widget'), and scopes it to a dashboard. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_widget and update_widget.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or whether it should be avoided in certain scenarios. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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