Switch the Waybar layout to a specific config.ctl line number. Use it to change your status bar mode by index when you need a different bar arrangement.
Switch to a specific waybar layout by config.ctl line number
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Layout line number in config.ctl |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that it changes the waybar layout from a config.ctl line, but does not state persistence, reload behavior, or what happens with an invalid line; with annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally adequate.
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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter setter.
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 simple setter with annotations and a fully documented parameter, the core action is clear. However, it leaves gaps around how to obtain a valid config.ctl line number and what the switch affects over time, so it is only 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?
There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already defines 'mode' as a layout line number in config.ctl. The description repeats that wording without adding indexing, valid range, or discovery guidance, so 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?
States the specific verb 'Switch to' and resource 'waybar layout', and the line-number mechanism implicitly distinguishes it from relative next/prev and read-only get siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it never points to next_waybar_mode or prev_waybar_mode as alternatives. The line-number mechanism only implies that the caller should use it when a specific config.ctl line is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.