Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ignix

by social.ignix
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Move or hide the web chat bubble

set_web_chat_placement
DestructiveIdempotent

Move or hide the chat bubble on the customer's website so it stops covering their cart, cookie bar or another floating button. Only the placement fields you pass change. It changes the live website at once: confirm with the user.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetXNoDistance from that side, in pixels (0-200). Raise this to clear a fixed sidebar.
offsetYNoDistance from the bottom, in pixels (0-200). Raise this to sit above a sticky bar instead of moving to the other corner.
positionNoWhich side the bubble sticks to.
hidePathsNoPaths where the bubble must not appear (max 20). "*" matches anything after it, e.g. "/checkout*". Pass an empty array to clear.
collapsibleNoLet visitors fold the bubble into a tab at the edge. It does not close the chat: it comes back on the next page, and reopens on its own if someone replies.
workspaceIdNoDefaults to the workspace this connection is scoped to.
hideOnMobileNoDo not load the chat at all on screens under 640px.
customLauncherNoHide our bubble entirely; the site opens the chat by calling Ignix.open() from its own button.
idempotencyKeyNoOptional. A unique id for this action (16-128 chars: letters, digits, _ : . -). If you are unsure whether a call went through (timeout, network error), repeat it with the SAME idempotencyKey and the same arguments: you get the original result and nothing is done twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: partial-update semantics ('only the placement fields you pass change') and the immediacy warning that the live site changes at once and requires user confirmation. It does not say what happens to unspecified placement fields on error, but it is consistent with and additive to the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the update-scope rule, then the risk/confirmation note. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 live-mutating tool with 9 optional params and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, update semantics, and the confirmation requirement, with idempotency handled by the schema. Minor gaps: no note on scope of effect (e.g. which site/workspace) beyond the workspaceId param, and no mention of error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries per-parameter detail (ranges, wildcard syntax, idempotency key behavior) and the baseline would be 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema cannot: a PATCH-style contract where omitted fields are left untouched, which matters for a 9-param, zero-required tool.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Move or hide') and resource ('the chat bubble on the customer's website'), plus the motivating problem (covering cart, cookie bar, floating button). The clause 'Only the placement fields you pass change' implicitly separates it from the broader update_web_chat sibling.

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?

Gives a clear triggering scenario (bubble overlapping other page elements) and a strong procedural constraint ('confirm with the user' because it changes the live site at once). It does not name get_web_chat/update_web_chat as alternatives, so the routing to siblings is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Ignix 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