nvidia-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kodi_layout_apply

Destructive

Apply a staged Kodi layout plan in 10 minutes using a preview ID. The manager backs up settings and rejects stale revisions before changes.

Instructions

Optional Manager: apply the exact staged plan within 10 minutes; Manager backs up and rejects stale revisions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "preview_id": "<preview_id>"
    },
    "name": "kodi_layout_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`preview_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the Manager takes a backup before applying and rejects stale revisions, and there is a 10-minute validity window. It does not say exactly which layout state gets overwritten, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the key constraint (10 minutes) and safety behavior front-loaded. The 'Optional Manager:' prefix adds little and is the only wasted token.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the destructive nature plus backup behavior are covered. However, the essential prerequisite chain (run preview, then apply its id within the window) is only half-stated, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive one-shot operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single required parameter preview_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It refers obliquely to a 'staged plan' but never explains that preview_id comes from kodi_layout_preview or what format it takes.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('the exact staged plan'), which is distinguishable from the sibling kodi_layout_preview that creates the plan. The 'Optional Manager:' prefix is ambiguous phrasing, but the core action is unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The 10-minute window and stale-revision rejection imply this must follow a fresh preview, but the description never names kodi_layout_preview as the prerequisite or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.