Reorder same-parent SVG elements in Inkscape to front, back, one step, a specific sibling index, or before/after a sibling deterministically.
Moves same-parent SVG elements to front, back, one step, a deterministic sibling index, or immediately before/after a sibling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| index | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| relativeTo | No | ||
| backupCreated | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Input schema / oneOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "action": {
+ "enum": [
+ "back",
+ "front",
+ "lower",
+ "raise"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "expectedRevision": {
+ "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ids": {
+ "items": {
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 100,
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "maxLength": 1024,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workspaceId": {
+ "pattern": "^ws_[a-f0-9]{16}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "action",
+ "expectedRevision",
+ "ids",
+ "path",
+ "workspaceId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "action": {
+ "const": "index",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "expectedRevision": {
+ "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ids": {
+ "items": {
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 100,
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "index": {
+ "maximum": 100000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "maxLength": 1024,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workspaceId": {
+ "pattern": "^ws_[a-f0-9]{16}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "action",
+ "expectedRevision",
+ "ids",
+ "index",
+ "path",
+ "workspaceId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "action": {
+ "enum": [
+ "before",
+ "after"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "expectedRevision": {
+ "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ids": {
+ "items": {
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 100,
+ "minItems": 1,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "maxLength": 1024,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "relativeTo": {
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workspaceId": {
+ "pattern": "^ws_[a-f0-9]{16}$",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "action",
+ "expectedRevision",
+ "ids",
+ "path",
+ "relativeTo",
+ "workspaceId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+]Input schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "action": {
- "enum": [
- "back",
- "front",
- "lower",
- "raise"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- },
- "expectedRevision": {
- "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "ids": {
- "items": {
- "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "maxItems": 100,
- "minItems": 1,
- "type": "array"
- },
- "path": {
- "maxLength": 1024,
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- "workspaceId": {
- "pattern": "^ws_[a-f0-9]{16}$",
- "type": "string"
- }
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "action",
- "expectedRevision",
- "ids",
- "path",
- "workspaceId"
-]Output schema / properties / action / enumPrevious value: -[
- "back",
- "front",
- "lower",
- "raise"
-]New value: +[
+ "back",
+ "front",
+ "lower",
+ "raise",
+ "index",
+ "before",
+ "after"
+]Output schema / properties / indexAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Output schema / properties / relativeToAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,127}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is destructiveHint=true; the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that elements move. It never mentions that ordering changes are persisted mutations requiring expectedRevision for optimistic-concurrency conflict detection, whether the operation is atomic across multiple ids, or what happens when ids are not siblings. For a destructive mutation tool these are real gaps.
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 the verb first and the operation enumeration in the same breath. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and 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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the action semantics are covered. However, for a destructive, revision-guarded mutation with a 3-branch oneOf contract, the description omits the mutation/conflict model and error conditions, leaving the agent to infer the write semantics from the schema alone.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the raw enum values: it clarifies that lower/raise are "one step", that index is "deterministic" sibling placement, and that before/after acts relative to a sibling. This maps the three oneOf branches to intent, though it says nothing about ids, path, or expectedRevision format constraints.
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 ("Moves") plus a precise resource and constraint ("same-parent SVG elements"), then enumerates the full operation space: front, back, one step, deterministic sibling index, before/after. This z-order semantics is clearly distinguishable from spatial siblings like elements_align or elements_distribute without opening any 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?
The action vocabulary implies when each mode applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose elements_arrange over elements_align, elements_distribute, or elements_transform, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that elements must share a parent). Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.