nvidia-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kodi_layout_rebuild

Destructive

Request a Kodi skin-menu rebuild while the device is idle, then inspect the TV after it finishes to refresh or repair the layout.

Instructions

Optional Manager: request one skin-menu rebuild while Kodi is idle. Inspect TV after it finishes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kodi_layout_rebuild"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the rebuild should happen while idle and that the TV should be inspected afterward, but does not explain what gets destroyed or how disruptive the rebuild is.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted explanation. The 'Optional Manager:' prefix is slightly odd but does not bloat the description.

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 not be explained. However, the description does not clarify how this rebuild relates to kodi_layout_apply or kodi_layout_preview, leaving the agent to infer which layout tool to use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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?

The description states a specific action: request one skin-menu rebuild. However, the prefix 'Optional Manager:' is ambiguous and does not clearly differentiate this from siblings like kodi_layout_apply or kodi_layout_preview.

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?

It provides a condition ('while Kodi is idle') and a post-action instruction ('Inspect TV after it finishes'), but does not say when to use this instead of kodi_layout_apply or kodi_layout_preview.

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