Skip to main content
Glama
fruggr

Zendesk MCP Server by Fruggr

by fruggr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Reorder Help Center Article

reorder_article
DestructiveIdempotent

Move an article within its current section to the top, bottom, before, or after a sibling article and report whether the new order was applied.

Instructions

Reorder an article within its current section by moving it relative to its siblings (top, bottom, or before/after another article), and return whether the new order was applied. This is the reliable way to satisfy "put this article first/last" requests: it writes the minimal set of article positions needed to make the order deterministic, because Zendesk leaves newly created articles tied at position 0 where a plain position update is silently ambiguous. It does NOT move the article to a different section — use update_article with section_id for that. Zendesk exposes no way to read whether a section is manually or automatically sorted, so when the section is sorted automatically (by date or alphabetically) the position writes are ignored; this tool detects that after the fact and returns guidance to switch the section to manual ordering in Guide. A move may reposition several neighbouring articles; when that count exceeds a configurable safety threshold the call is refused unless confirm is set to true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesWhere to move the article relative to its section siblings: "top" (becomes first), "bottom" (becomes last), or "before"/"after" a specific reference article. "before" and "after" require reference_article_id.
confirmNoSafety guard for large reorders. When the move would rewrite more article positions than the configured threshold (REORDER_CONFIRM_THRESHOLD, default 20), the tool refuses and reports the count until you pass true here. Has no effect on small reorders.
normalizeNoWhen true, also renumber every article in the section to contiguous positions (0, 1, 2, …) so the stored positions stay tidy. Defaults to false, which writes the fewest positions possible and lets gaps remain. Either way the confirmation threshold still applies.
article_idYesArticle ID — the numeric id of the article to move within its section. Obtain it from list_articles or search_articles.
reference_article_idNoThe sibling article to position next to when target is "before" or "after" (numeric id from list_articles). Must belong to the same section and differ from article_id; leave it unset for "top" or "bottom".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.24.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Safety guard for large reorders. When the move would rewrite more article positions than the configured threshold (ZENDESK_REORDER_CONFIRM_THRESHOLD, default 20), the tool refuses and reports the count until you pass true here. Has no effect on small reorders."New value: +"Safety guard for large reorders. When the move would rewrite more article positions than the configured threshold (REORDER_CONFIRM_THRESHOLD, default 20), the tool refuses and reports the count until you pass true here. Has no effect on small reorders."
  2. Addedv2.15.0
  3. Removedv2.14.0
  4. Addedv2.13.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint=false/idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains the position-0 tie ambiguity that motivates minimal writes, discloses that auto-sorted sections silently ignore writes and how that is detected after the fact, and describes the threshold-based refusal requiring confirm. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then layered caveats, with zero filler sentences. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers the action, the exclusion, the failure mode (auto-sorted sections), the safety gate, and even the return value ("return whether the new order was applied") in the absence of an output schema. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including target, confirm, and normalize is already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm/threshold behavior but adds nothing beyond the schema and never mentions normalize. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource (reorder an article within its current section) plus the precise mechanism (relative to siblings: top, bottom, before/after). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling update_article for cross-section moves, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the trigger scenario ("put this article first/last" requests) and the alternative (update_article with section_id) for the case this tool does not cover. It also states the automatic-sorting condition under which the tool will not work, which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance that prevents wasted calls.

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