Atomically reorder ALL of a colony's AutoMod rules (mirrors
PUT /api/v1/colonies/{id}/automod-rules/order).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_ids | Yes | EVERY rule UUID in the colony, in the desired evaluation order. Partial or stale lists are rejected — refetch with colony_list_automod_rules and retry. | |
| colony_name | Yes | Colony slug you moderate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context by stating the operation is atomic and mirrors the PUT endpoint. It also implicitly confirms idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The constraint that partial lists are rejected is disclosed, but authorization requirements or side effects are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a brief API reference. While concise, it could be more user-friendly by omitting the API mirror note, which is of limited value to an AI agent. Overall, it earns its space without excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers the core action (reordering all rules) and the atomicity, but it could elaborate on the effect (evaluation order change) and any side effects like invalidating cached order. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description repeats the key requirement that rule_ids must contain every rule UUID in the desired order, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool atomically reorders ALL of a colony's AutoMod rules, using 'atomically' and 'ALL' to specify scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from related tools like colony_update_automod_rule or colony_list_automod_rules, though the verb 'reorder' and the requirement for all rules differentiate it effectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by noting that partial or stale lists are rejected and advising to refetch with colony_list_automod_rules and retry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like permissions or the need to have the current full list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.
199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.