Oviond

Add image widget

add_image_widget

Add an image widget to a page. Position, width, and height use sensible defaults.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`link`	No	Optional click-through URL when the image is clicked.
`page_id`	Yes	Page ID the widget will be placed on, from list_pages.
`link_url`	No	Image URL to display — use list_media to find an uploaded image.
`client_id`	Yes	Client ID the report belongs to (from list_clients).
`image_fit`	No	CSS object-fit class. Default: "object-contain".
`source_id`	Yes	Report ID the widget belongs to (from list_reports).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The image widget that was added — widget_id, plus the stored row with the defaults the server filled in (position, width, height).
`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": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "The image widget that was added — widget_id, plus the stored row with the defaults the server filled in (position, width, height).",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond the safety profile. It contributes the "sensible defaults" note, which usefully preempts the agent from hunting for position/width/height parameters that don't exist in the schema. It doesn't disclose side effects like whether the widget is appended or replaces content, but with annotations present the bar is lower and the description clears it minimally.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the second sentence earning its place by clarifying default layout behavior. There is no fluff and no repetition of schema content, though it is terse enough to be borderline under-specified.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The structured data carries most of the weight here: 100% parameter coverage, annotations for the mutation profile, and an output schema for return values. The description covers purpose and defaults adequately, but leaves the agent without any cross-tool selection context — the same gap flagged under usage_guidelines — so it is adequate rather than complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the six parameters is already documented — including the link vs link_url distinction and the image_fit default. Per the rubric this sets a baseline of 3; the description's "sensible defaults" hint adds a small amount of signal but no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

"Add an image widget to a page" names a specific verb, resource, and destination, and the resource type distinguishes it from sibling widget tools like add_text_widget and add_button_widget. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the object "image widget" carries the differentiation and the defaults note adds useful scope.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives — no mention of when add_asset_to_page or another widget adder would be more appropriate, and no when-not conditions. Among 15+ add_*_widget siblings, an agent receives no routing help beyond the tool name.

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?