Oviond

Create client

create_client

Create a new client

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Client name
`folders`	No	Folder IDs (from list_folders)
`manager`	No	Manager user ID (from list_users)
`website`	Yes	Client website URL
`currency`	Yes	Currency ISO 4217 code, e.g. "USD" — the server fills in symbol + country iso
`timezone`	Yes	IANA timezone (e.g. America/New_York)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The new client, complete — including the theme_id the server derived from the website's branding. Pass its id when creating reports or linking datasources.
`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 client, complete — including the theme_id the server derived from the website's branding. Pass its id when creating reports or linking datasources.",
+      "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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already indicate that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'create', such as side effects, defaults, duplicate handling, or whether the client is immediately available.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, but it merely restates the tool name and title. This is under-specification rather than earned conciseness, so it does not warrant a higher score.

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 close sibling create_client_with_report, the description provides no context for choosing between them. The schema and output schema offer substantial detail, but the description itself fails to give enough guidance for correct tool selection or expected behavior.

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% and each parameter is documented with meaningful detail, including the currency pattern and the server-filling behavior. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('client'), so the core purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling create_client_with_report, so it falls short of a top score.

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 about when to use this tool versus create_client_with_report, update_client, or archive_client. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as required permissions or how folders and manager relate to the creation flow.

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?