Redash MCP Server

update_widget

Update an existing dashboard widget's content, size, position, or linked visualization by providing its widget ID and desired changes.

Instructions

Update an existing 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": {
      "widgetId": "<widgetId>"
    },
    "name": "update_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Text content for text widgets
`width`	No	Width of the widget (1-6)
`options`	No	Widget options
`position`	No
`widgetId`	Yes	ID of the widget to update
`visualization_id`	No	ID of the visualization to display

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Jul 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / options / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

addedInput schema / properties / position

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "autoHeight": {
+      "description": "Whether the widget height should auto-grow",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "col": {
+      "description": "Grid column, starting at 0",
+      "maximum": 11,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "row": {
+      "description": "Grid row, starting at 0",
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "sizeX": {
+      "description": "Widget width in grid columns",
+      "maximum": 12,
+      "minimum": 2,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "sizeY": {
+      "description": "Widget height in grid rows",
+      "maximum": 1000,
+      "minimum": 2,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.0.13May 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'update'. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe tool use.

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 very short (5 words), which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load crucial information such as update behavior or scope. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the presence of closely related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update scope, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 high (83%), and the input schema provides descriptions for most parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets a baseline but provides no added value.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states 'Update an existing widget', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_widget_layout' or 'update_widget_parameter_mappings', which also update aspects of a widget. Thus, the purpose is somewhat vague for an agent to choose this tool over alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., create_widget, update_widget_layout, delete_widget). No context or conditions for use are given, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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

Deploy Server