hub_reorder_category_modifiersSet the order the till asks a category’s modifiers in. Pass EVERY link id for that category exactly once, in the order wanted — a partial list is refused. Read them from get_category_modifiers with that categoryId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categoryId | Yes | Category id from get_categories | |
| orderedIds | Yes | Every link id for this category, each once, in ask order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: a partial list is refused and each link id must appear exactly once. It stops short of describing idempotency or behavior on unknown ids, but the failure mode is a real addition.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the operative constraint and data source. No filler; every clause carries information.
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?
For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation, the data source, and the key failure mode. Minor gaps remain (atomicity, behavior on invalid/duplicate ids), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 both parameters are already documented, but the description goes beyond the schema by naming the sibling tool to source the ids from and reinforcing the completeness constraint that governs orderedIds. That is meaningful semantic context, not a restatement.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Set the order the till asks a category's modifiers in'), and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hub_reorder_modifier_choices, hub_reorder_categories, and hub_update_category_modifier. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
Gives an explicit prerequisite and data source: 'Read them from get_category_modifiers with that categoryId,' plus the constraint that the list must be complete or it is refused. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over hub_update_category_modifier, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not statement.
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.