Skip to main content
Glama

Oviond

by com.oviond.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List saved section widgets

list_asset_widgets
Read-only

List the widgets that belong to an asset (useful for previewing what add_asset_to_page will instantiate).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAsset ID (from list_assets).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoOne row per widget in the section — id, name, type, chart, its datasource and query, and its size. This is what add_asset_to_page will instantiate.
metaNoPage, limit and total row count.
successYesTrue when the call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / description
      Previous value: -"Pagination for the list — page, limit and the total row count."New value: +"Page, limit and total row count."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum rows per page."New value: +"Max rows per page."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / page / description
      Previous value: -"Zero-based index of the page returned."New value: +"Page index, zero-based."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / total / description
      Previous value: -"Total rows matching the query across all pages."New value: +"Total rows matching the query."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / success / description
      Previous value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "One row per widget in the section — id, name, type, chart, its datasource and query, and its size. This is what add_asset_to_page will instantiate.",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Pagination for the list — page, limit and the total row count.",
+      "properties": {
+        "limit": {
+          "description": "Maximum rows per page.",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "page": {
+          "description": "Zero-based index of the page returned.",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "description": "Total rows matching the query across all pages.",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the semantic context that the returned list represents what add_asset_to_page will instantiate, which is useful. However, it does not disclose traits like ordering, pagination, or limits — though the output schema partially covers returns. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and a parenthetical purpose appended. There is zero filler, and the parenthetical earns its place by explaining the practical use case. Ideal size and structure for a one-parameter list tool.

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 simple read-only tool with one documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit routing to alternatives like list_widgets for an unscoped widget list, but the asset-scoping language and the add_asset_to_page tie-in make the intended usage unambiguous.

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% — the single required parameter 'id' is already documented as 'Asset ID (from list_assets)', which tells the agent where to source the value. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the widgets that belong to an asset.' The parenthetical 'useful for previewing what add_asset_to_page will instantiate' gives a clear purpose and implicitly differentiates this from siblings like list_widgets (all widgets) and list_template_widgets (template widgets). A single sentence fully disambiguates the tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to preview what add_asset_to_page will instantiate. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., list_widgets for a global list, get_widget for a single widget) or state when not to use it, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All Oviond 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