Oviond

Add saved section to page

add_asset_to_page

Instantiate an asset's widgets onto a report page. Each widget is cloned with a fresh ID and stacked below existing widgets. Widgets whose datasource / goal / calculated metric isn't connected for the client land as demo data instead of erroring on first load.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page_id`	Yes	Page ID to place the widgets on, from list_pages.
`asset_id`	Yes	Source asset ID (from list_assets).
`client_id`	Yes	Client ID the report belongs to (from list_clients).
`source_id`	Yes	Report ID to add the widgets to (from list_reports).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	What was added — the new widget ids, each a fresh clone stacked below what was already on the page. Read their numbers with get_widget_data.
`success`	Yes	True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "What was added — the new widget ids, each a fresh clone stacked below what was already on the page. Read their numbers with get_widget_data."
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the cloning behavior with fresh IDs and the stacking of widgets below existing ones. It also surfaces the demo-data fallback for unconnected datasources/goals/metrics, which is a non-obvious side effect. This is significant behavioral context for an operation that will modify a page.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the core action, the second covers cloning, placement, and fallback behavior. No filler or redundant repetition of the title/schema. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating bulk-add operation, the description plus full schema descriptions and output schema are sufficient to understand invocation. It lacks explicit notes on idempotency or failure modes, but these are minor given the transparent cloning statement. Overall adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 already describes all four parameters and references the list_* sources for valid IDs. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific action and resource: instantiate an asset's widgets onto a report page. It distinguishes itself from single-widget add tools by explaining that all of an asset's widgets are cloned. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like add_report_section or add_*_widget, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_report_section or the individual add_*_widget tools. The intended context is only implied by 'instantiate an asset's widgets.' There are no prereq notes or exclusion statements.

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

All Oviond tools Inspect

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

Need Help?