tie-mcp-server

get_widget_options

Retrieve the configuration options for a widget by providing its unique ID and the dashboard ID it belongs to.

Instructions

Get a widget's options 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_options"
  }
}

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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a getter, it is critical to state that it is read-only, but this is missing.

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 concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical information like required parameters or return values. It is too sparse to be fully effective.

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 simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value format or possible errors, which an agent would need to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions are minimal ('Path parameter: id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what the IDs represent or how they relate to each other.

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 'get a widget's options by id', which is a reasonable purpose, but it is ambiguous about which ID is needed and does not mention dashboardId. Given that there are many getter tools, this description is too vague to clearly differentiate.

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 like set_widget_options or other getters. The sibling list includes set_widget_options, but the description does not indicate the relationship or provide any usage context.

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

Deploy Server