oviond

Update goal widget

update_goal_widget

Point a Goal widget at a saved goal. Ids come from list_goals. The goal carries its own metric query, target and comparison, so nothing else is needed; the gauge is re-fetched in the background.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Display name. Omit to show the goal's own name.
`goal_id`	Yes	Goal id (from list_goals).
`widget_id`	Yes	Widget ID (from list_widgets).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The widget as saved, now pointed at that goal. The gauge is re-fetching in the background — read it with get_widget_data.
`success`	Yes	True when the call succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

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",
-  "goal_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "widget_id",
+  "goal_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."

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that the goal carries its own metric query, target, and comparison (so no extra params are needed) and that the gauge is re-fetched in the background. This goes beyond the annotations to explain what happens on execution, notably the background refresh, without contradicting the structured hints.

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?

The description is efficient: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second explains the minimal inputs and the background behavior. Every clause earns its place, making it easy to scan and act on quickly.

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 straightforward widget update, the description is fairly complete: it states what it does, the required IDs, and the fact that no other goal parameters are needed. It also notes the background refresh, which is relevant side behavior. The output schema exists, so not describing return values is acceptable. It doesn't cover potential failure modes or permissions, but those are not critical for this simple, non-destructive update.

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 covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that widget_id and goal_id are the primary identifiers and implies that name is optional, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., that goal_id comes from list_goals is already in the parameter description). It adds no new semantics about format or constraints.

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 clearly states the action: 'Point a Goal widget at a saved goal.' It identifies the resource (Goal widget) and the specific operation (pointing it at a goal), making it easily distinguishable from other update_*_widget tools in the sibling list. The mention of 'Ids come from list_goals' further clarifies the required inputs, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by stating the purpose and the need for IDs from list_goals, and explicitly notes that 'nothing else is needed' for the goal's metric/target. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools like update_goal (which updates the goal itself) or other widget update tools, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit about alternatives or exclusions.

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?