tie-mcp-server

update_widget

Update a widget's position, size, and title on a specified dashboard by providing widget and dashboard IDs.

Instructions

Update widget instance.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Path parameter: id
`body`	Yes	Request body payload
`dashboardId`	Yes	Path parameter: dashboardId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, error handling, or return behavior. It is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects.

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 at one sentence, but it is also incomplete. Conciseness is positive, but the structure lacks necessary details for an effective tool definition.

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 complexity of the update operation (3 required params including a nested body object) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the nature of the update (e.g., partial replace) or the relationship to the parameters.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all properties. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 the resource 'widget instance'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_widget_options or create_widget, which could cause confusion.

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 set_widget_options or create_widget. The description lacks any context about its intended use case.

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

Deploy Server