Create a custom track-shuffling automation algorithm by supplying a name and JavaScript function body, enabling tailored playback order for radio station automation.
Create a new automation algorithm for shuffling tracks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JavaScript function body, e.g. (function(tracks){return tracks.reverse()}) | |
| name | Yes | The automation algorithm name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is a mutating operation, what permissions or scope are needed, whether names must be unique, or what side effects creation has. A one-line create tool with zero annotation coverage leaves the agent guessing about behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. The trade-off is that the extreme brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it falls short of a 5.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent would want beyond the two schema-documented parameters: scope, permissions, duplicate handling, and result shape. The schema covers the inputs, but the definition as a whole is incomplete for a create operation.
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%, and the schema itself explains both `name` and `body` (including a JavaScript example), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and "for shuffling tracks" actually conflicts slightly with the schema's generic JavaScript body guidance.
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 specific verb and resource ("Create a new automation algorithm"), which cleanly separates it from the get/update/delete_automation_algorithm siblings. However, the trailing qualifier "for shuffling tracks" narrows the stated purpose in a way that may mislead, since the schema's body example (reversing a track array) suggests arbitrary algorithms are permitted.
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 create an algorithm versus updating an existing one, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., station/scoping requirements), and no named alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.