Oviond

Refresh client favicon

refresh_client_favicon

Re-derive a client's square favicon from its stored website (Google favicon service), cache-bust it, save it, and return the new favicon URL. Requires the client to have a website configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Client ID (from list_clients)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The client carrying the newly derived favicon_url.
`success`	Yes	True when the call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

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 / 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."

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 client carrying the newly derived favicon_url.",
+      "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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it re-derives from an external service (Google favicon service), cache-busts, saves, and returns the new URL. It also discloses the prerequisite. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and outcome; the second states the prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the external dependency, the prerequisite, and the return value. It doesn't mention failure modes (e.g., what happens if the website is unreachable), but the output schema and annotations cover the rest. This is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Client ID (from list_clients)'. The description adds the context that this ID must reference a client with a website configured, which is useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 ('re-derive'), the resource ('client's square favicon'), the source ('stored website via Google favicon service'), and the action sequence (cache-bust, save, return URL). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like refresh_account_favicon and refresh_client_screenshot by naming the exact resource and mechanism.

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 states a clear prerequisite: 'Requires the client to have a website configured.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite plus the distinctive resource (client favicon) provides adequate usage context among the large sibling list.

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?