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 this is a non-readonly but non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the order array must contain ALL slides, implying full-replacement semantics where a partial list is invalid. It still does not say what happens if ids are missing or repeated (error vs. silent drop), which is the main remaining gap.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Set the playback order') and then explains the key parameter. The nested colon-and-quotes construction is slightly awkward but wastes no words.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter idempotent mutation the description covers the essential constraint, leaving only the failure behavior for incomplete or invalid orders unstated.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including 'Every slide id, once.' The description reinforces the same completeness constraint on 'order' but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource: set the playback order of a presentation's slides, identified by slug and an id list. It is clearly distinct from siblings like add_slide, delete_slide, and edit_slides, though it never names those alternatives 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the presentation to exist, or permissions), and no routing to alternative tools such as edit_slides for non-order edits. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.
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.