Oviond

Update automation

update_automation

Destructive

Update an existing automation — only include the fields you want to change

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Automation ID (from list_automations)
`day`	No	Day of send: weekday name (weekly) or day-of-month (monthly)
`name`	No	Automation name
`hours`	No	Hour of send (e.g. "9")
`custom`	No	Required when template_id === "custom"
`minutes`	No	Minute of send (e.g. "00")
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone
`date_text`	No	Date-range preset label for the report
`frequency`	No	Send frequency
`sender_id`	No	Saved email sender id
`recipients`	No	Recipient email addresses
`template_id`	No	Saved email template id, or "custom" with a `custom` payload
`time_format`	No	Meridiem for the send time

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The automation as saved — schedule, recipients and the recomputed next_run_at.
`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 automation as saved — schedule, recipients and the recomputed next_run_at.",
+      "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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, warning of mutation. The description adds that updates are partial ('only include the fields you want to change'), which is a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not detail side effects, idempotency, or whether validation errors occur, but the annotations already disclose the destructive nature.

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?

A single concise sentence that delivers the key usage rule. The partial-update guidance is front-loaded and relevant. No filler. It could have been improved by naming the id or referencing the sibling create_automation, but it is efficient and clear.

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 13-parameter mutation tool, the schema covers parameter semantics and the annotations cover safety. The description adds the critical partial-update behavior. Given the rich schema and annotations, this is fairly complete. It doesn't mention how id is obtained (though the schema says from list_automations), and it doesn't discuss validation or effect on schedule, but that is covered by schema and annotations.

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 the schema already explains every parameter. The description only adds the partial-update instruction, which applies to all parameters. The description correctly avoids repeating schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 says 'Update an existing automation', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_automation, archive_automation, pause_automation, and test_automation, though it doesn't name them explicitly. The partial-update hint adds useful specificity.

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 says 'only include the fields you want to change', which is essential guidance for the update pattern. Context signals show schema is fully documented, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given. The partial-update instruction is clear and prevents the common mistake of sending the full object or omitting fields.

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?