Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pin a design onto a board

pin_design_to_board
DestructiveIdempotent

Pin one of a site's design variations onto a board so it can be presented and compared alongside other options. Boards are organization-owned and may already contain designs from other clients in the same organization. If the target board already has a public share link, the design becomes visible at that link immediately. Identify the design by variation_index (from list_variations) — or variation_id if you already have it. By default the design lands on the source site's client's main board; pass board_name to add it to a named board for that client (matched if one with that name exists, created if not), or board_id to target any specific existing board in your organization, including a board owned by another client. Optional display_label sets the client-facing name shown for the design on the board (e.g. "Bold & Dark"). Pinning the same design twice is a harmless no-op. Returns the board id/name, the pinned item id, and the board's public share link when it has one.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idYesThe site the design belongs to
board_idNoTarget any existing board owned by this organization, including one belonging to another client (get ids from list_boards)
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
board_nameNoTarget a board by name — matched if it exists, otherwise created
variation_idNoThe variation's stable id, if you have it (alternative to variation_index)
display_labelNoClient-facing name for this design on the board, e.g. "Option B — Bold & Dark"
variation_indexNoZero-based variation index from list_variations (use this or variation_id)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description adds non-obvious consequences the schema cannot convey: boards are organization-owned and may contain other clients' designs, and if the target board has a public share link the design becomes publicly visible immediately. It also discloses idempotent duplicate behavior and the return shape, matching the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then visibility side effect, then parameter routing, then return values. Every sentence carries information, though the single long paragraph could be split for scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers target selection, defaults, side effects, idempotency, and the returned fields (board id/name, item id, share link). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds semantics beyond it: the default board is the source site's client's main board, board_name is matched-or-created, and display_label is the client-facing name. These conditional behaviors are not expressible in the flat schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pin one of a site's design variations onto a board') and immediately clarifies the intent (presentation/comparison). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as share_board, list_boards, or generate_design_variation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains how to identify the design (variation_index from list_variations, or variation_id), and the three targeting modes: default main board, board_name (matched-or-created), or board_id (any existing org board). It also names the lookup sibling (list_boards) via the schema and states the duplicate-pin case is a no-op.

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

All Mondovo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources