Redash MCP Server

update_dashboard

Update an existing Redash dashboard by modifying its name, tags, draft status, archive status, or filter settings.

Instructions

Update an existing dashboard in Redash

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": {
      "dashboardId": "<dashboardId>"
    },
    "name": "update_dashboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name of the dashboard
`tags`	No	Tags for the dashboard
`is_draft`	No	Whether the dashboard is a draft
`dashboardId`	Yes	ID of the dashboard to update
`is_archived`	No	Whether the dashboard is archived
`dashboard_filters_enabled`	No	Whether dashboard filters are enabled

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.13May 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'update', implying mutation, but omits details about side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or any consequences of the update.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could include more context (e.g., that updates are partial or full) without becoming verbose, achieving a middle ground.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain the return value (e.g., updated dashboard object), prerequisites, or the scope of the update. It is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing dashboard'. It specifies the tool's purpose but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like archive_dashboard or fork_dashboard, which also modify dashboards in specific ways.

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 such as archive_dashboard (for archival) or create_dashboard (for new ones). The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios 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