Update the JavaScript function body for an existing laut.fm automation algorithm by name to change how it processes tracks.
Update the function used by an existing automation algorithm
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether this replaces the existing function entirely, whether it requires specific permissions, whether changes take effect immediately, or whether it's reversible. These are important for a mutation tool.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No waste or redundancy.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to describe what happens to the existing function, any side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 fully documents both parameters (name and body) with examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('the function used by an existing automation algorithm'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_automation_algorithm, delete_automation_algorithm, and get_automation_algorithm. It's clear what the tool does, though 'function' is slightly ambiguous without more context.
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 description only says it updates an existing automation algorithm's function, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus create_automation_algorithm, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the algorithm must already exist). No when-to-use or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.