tie-mcp-server

get_widget

Retrieve a specific widget instance by providing its ID and the associated dashboard ID.

Instructions

Get widget instance by 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>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_widget"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Path parameter: id
`dashboardId`	Yes	Path parameter: dashboardId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not confirm it is side-effect-free, what happens on missing IDs, or any rate limits. A more descriptive statement would improve transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, making it concise. However, it could be slightly improved by including the 'dashboardId' parameter to avoid ambiguity. The structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 low complexity of this getter tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It lacks information about the return value, error handling, or prerequisites. Without output schema, the description should hint at what the response contains. Thus it is incomplete.

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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains them as path parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and resource 'widget instance' and the filter 'by id'. However, it omits the required 'dashboardId' parameter, which could mislead about required inputs. Among siblings like 'get_widget_options' and 'list_widgets', it distinguishes itself as fetching a specific instance.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., need dashboard and widget IDs) or context in which it is appropriate. The existence of sibling tools like 'list_widgets' or 'get_widget_options' implies different use cases, but no explicit direction is given.

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

Deploy Server