Oviond

Update image widget

update_image_widget

Update an IMAGE widget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Widget ID (from list_widgets).
`link`	No	New click-through URL.
`link_url`	No	New image source URL — use list_media to find an uploaded image.
`image_fit`	No	New CSS object-fit class.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The image widget as saved, with the update applied.
`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 image widget as saved, with the update applied.",
+      "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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'Update', which is already implied by readOnlyHint=false. It does not explain what properties are affected, whether the operation is idempotent, or what errors might occur. Annotations provide the only behavioral signal, and the description fails to add any context.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but it is under-specified to the point of being functionally empty. It lacks any structural information such as usage scoping or parameter grouping, and the single sentence simply repeats the name.

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?

With a large family of sibling widget-update tools and no explanatory context, this description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select or invoke the tool. The schema documents parameters, but the description provides no higher-level context about the tool's role or typical usage.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update an IMAGE widget' merely restates the tool name and title, providing no new information about what 'update' entails or what distinguishes an image widget update from other widget updates. It is a tautology rather than a functional explanation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling update_* tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. An agent cannot discern from the description when this tool is the right choice.

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?