Modify an existing cue list's name, description, or loop behavior by passing its ID.
Update cue list name or description
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| loop | No | Whether to loop the cue list (restart from first cue after last cue finishes) | |
| name | No | New name for the cue list | |
| cueListId | Yes | Cue list ID to update | |
| description | No | New description for the cue list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / loopAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Whether to loop the cue list (restart from first cue after last cue finishes)",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the update is partial (do omitted fields get wiped?), whether permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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?
It is a single short sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. But its brevity comes at the cost of accuracy and completeness, so it reads as under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It neither covers the full set of updatable fields nor explains the mutation semantics, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters including their meaning, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail, and its narrow 'name or description' phrasing actually omits the documented `loop` parameter rather than clarifying anything.
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?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Update cue list'), so the agent knows it modifies an existing cue list. However, it claims the tool updates only 'name or description' while the schema exposes a `loop` parameter, so the stated scope is understated and could mislead. It also does nothing to distinguish this single-item update from siblings like bulk_update_cue_lists or update_cue.
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 guidance, no indication of when this beats bulk_update_cue_lists or update_cue, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.