Update multiple cue lists at once by supplying cue list IDs and optional new names, descriptions, or loop settings.
Update multiple cue lists in a single operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cueLists | Yes | Array of cue list updates to apply |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses almost nothing. It never states whether the bulk update is atomic or permits partial failure, what happens to invalid cueListId values, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what permissions are required.
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 wasted words, which is structurally ideal. It is arguably too terse for a bulk mutation tool, but it earns its place and reads cleanly.
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 bulk write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum address atomicity, partial-failure semantics, and what the caller gets back. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for safe invocation.
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 cueListId, name, description, and loop are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource ('Update multiple cue lists') and implies the bulk scope via 'multiple', which distinguishes it from the singular sibling update_cue_list. It does not, however, name the sibling it is not, so differentiation is left implicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_cue_list or bulk_create/bulk_delete_cue_lists, and no preconditions or exclusions stated. The 'single operation' phrasing hints at a batching benefit but never says when batching is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.