reorder_slidesSet the playback order: "order" lists the ids of ALL slides of the presentation in the new order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The presentation's slug (its address: /movie/<slug>/). | |
| order | Yes | Every slide id, once. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "order": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "number": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "order"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read-only but non-destructive write with a closed world. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the order must enumerate ALL slides (a full-set replacement, not a partial patch), but says nothing about permission requirements, what happens to missing/duplicate ids, or failure behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the ordering constraint second. Nothing is wasted and the key caveat is not buried.
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?
With a full input schema, an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it. The absence of any error/partial-list guidance keeps it from being fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (slug, order) are already documented with their semantics. The description largely restates the schema's "Every slide id, once," so it adds little beyond the structured data — the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ("Set") and resource ("playback order") and clarifies that the operation covers the whole presentation. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like add_slide/delete_slide/update_slide, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the name and "set the playback order" make it obvious when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. update_slide for editing a single slide's content).
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.