Oviond

Save widgets as a section

create_asset

Save widgets as a reusable section, the same way the editor does when you select widgets and save them: each widget is copied onto the section with a fresh id, and its type and datasources are derived from what you picked. Use add_asset_to_page to drop the section onto a report page later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Section display name.
`tags`	No	Categorization tags.
`widget_ids`	Yes	Widgets to save into the section (ids from list_widgets). Their current config is copied.
`description`	No	Section description.
`is_recommended`	No	Promote this section to the top of the default "Recommended" sort.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The new saved section — id, name and tags. Pass the id to add_asset_to_page to drop it onto a report.
`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 new saved section — id, name and tags. Pass the id to add_asset_to_page to drop it onto a report.",
+      "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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: widgets are copied, receive fresh ids, and inherit type/datasources from the selection. It does not explicitly say original widgets remain untouched, but 'copied' makes that a reasonable inference.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a concise behavioral explanation and a pointer to the sibling tool. No filler, tautology, or repeated schema details.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the core behavior, the relationship to widget_ids, and the intended next step.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description's 'what you picked' maps to widget_ids but adds little beyond the schema's 'current config is copied'.

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 concrete action: saving selected widgets into a reusable section, and specifies the core semantics (copied widgets, fresh ids, derived types/datasources). The reference to add_asset_to_page distinguishes this from adding a section directly to a report.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The editor analogy and the pointer to add_asset_to_page give clear context for when this tool fits in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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?