Skip to main content
Glama

oviond

by com.oviond
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update calculated metric widget

update_calculated_metric_widget

Point a Calculated Metric widget at a saved formula. Ids come from list_calculated_metrics. The series is re-fetched in the background — call get_widget_data with this id to read the numbers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name.
chartNoChart type.
dimensionNoTime dimension to trend by. A formula is evaluated over the report's date range, so this is what makes it a series rather than a single number.
widget_idYesWidget ID (from list_widgets).
calculated_metric_idNoCalculated metric id (from list_calculated_metrics).
calculated_metric_nameNoThe metric's name (from the same list) — labels the series, and names the widget while the name is still auto-generated.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe widget as saved, now pointed at that formula. The series is re-fetching in the background — read it with get_widget_data.
successYesTrue when the call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / properties / id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / widget_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "widget_id"
+]
    • 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the non-obvious background behavior: the series is re-fetched asynchronously, and the current response is not where you read the numbers. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only indicate it is not read-only and not explicitly destructive. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the operational consequence is in the second sentence. Every clause contributes either intent or follow-up behavior.

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 an update operation with six parameters, the description covers the prerequisite data source, the background side effect, and how to observe the result. With a full schema, an output schema, and annotations present, nothing critical is missing, though create-versus-update routing could have been more explicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a note about ID provenance and the follow-up widget ID, but those are already reflected in the schema descriptions for calculated_metric_id and widget_id. It does not meaningfully enhance the semantics of name, chart, or dimension.

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 opens with a specific action — 'Point a Calculated Metric widget at a saved formula' — naming the exact resource and intent. This clearly distinguishes it from updating the formula itself (update_calculated_metric) or creating a widget (add_calculated_metric_widget). The ID sourcing detail reinforces what the operation is about.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite by saying IDs come from list_calculated_metrics, and it provides a follow-up call (get_widget_data) for reading the resulting numbers. It does not explicitly contrast this with add_calculated_metric_widget or other update_* widgets, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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