Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tie-mcp-server

tie-mcp-server

by taherkaraki
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_widget

Add a widget to a dashboard by specifying its position, dimensions, and title. Requires dashboard ID and widget configuration.

Instructions

Create a new widget in dashboard by dashboard id

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesRequest body payload
dashboardIdYesPath parameter: dashboardId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create' indicating mutation, but omits behavioral details such as authorization needs, side effects, or response format.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the action and resource.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context on return values, error conditions, or expected behavior, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter (e.g., posX, posY) in the widget context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('widget in dashboard'), and the identifying parameter ('by dashboard id'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_widget' or 'create_dashboard'.

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, no prerequisites listed, and no conditions for when not to use it.

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