Orivox AI Website Builder

write_asset

Create or overwrite one flat shared asset file -- css, js, or json -- stored beside the pages and referenced RELATIVELY, e.g.

Names are lowercase flat names only (letters/digits/_/-, one of .css/.js/.json, no folders). Content is saved verbatim. Use assets to share styling and logic across pages instead of duplicating it inline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`file_name`	Yes
`project_guid`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden, and it does so well. It explicitly says the tool overwrites, stores content verbatim, restricts file names to flat lowercase names, and enforces no folders. That is substantial transparency for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and resource, then immediately covers constraints and usage context. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the embedded relative-reference example is useful without blurring the definition.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers format, constraints, verbatim storage, and relative-reference usage. The main gap is the missing guidance around project_guid, and slight ambiguity about whether overwriting requires any preconditions.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It meaningfully explains file_name constraints and content behavior, but it does not explain project_guid. The agent must infer that project_guid identifies the project or site containing the pages.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: create or overwrite a flat shared asset file. It narrows the scope to css/js/json, gives relative-reference examples, and does not include any sibling differentiation that would confuse an agent.

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 provides clear usage intent: use assets for shared styling/logic across pages instead of duplicating inline. It doesn't explicitly name a when-not-to-use sibling, but the asset-vs-page distinction and file-type restrictions make tool selection fairly clear.

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

All Orivox AI Website Builder tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.

Completeness4/5

The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.

Resources

Need Help?