Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

reorder_rules

Idempotent

Change the order in which addy.io rules are applied by providing all rule IDs in the desired sequence, so alias filtering and routing run in the intended priority.

Instructions

Set the order rules are applied in.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rule_ids": "<rule_ids>"
    },
    "name": "reorder_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rule_idsYesAll rule ids, in the new order

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation governs rule application order, which is useful context. However, it does not say whether the supplied list must be exhaustive or what happens to rules omitted from it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the mutation involved.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It does not cover error behavior for unknown ids, whether partial lists are accepted, or what the caller gets back, which leaves a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'All rule ids, in the new order', which conveys full replacement semantics. The description itself adds no detail about ordering syntax or validation, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: setting the application order of rules. That is enough to distinguish it from create_rule, delete_rule, and list_rules, though it never says what a 'rule' is or where the order takes effect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing existing rule ids, and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the priority-ordering operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools