Preview or apply exact before/after edits to Kodi files safely; writes require Kodi stopped, a matching SHA-256, and create an automatic backup.
Preview/apply exact before/after replacements. Writes need Kodi stopped, matching SHA and automatic backup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| edits | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| expected_sha256 | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavior: Kodi must be stopped, the SHA must match, and a backup is taken automatically. It omits that dry_run defaults to true, which is the most important operational detail.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler, and the preview/apply scope is front-loaded ahead of the write constraints. Very dense but readable; no wasted clauses.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the write hazards are covered. However, with four undocumented parameters, a nested edits array of unexplained shape, and a default-true dry_run never mentioned, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It maps to three params (before/after replacements -> edits, matching SHA -> expected_sha256, preview/apply -> dry_run) but says nothing about path semantics or the shape of the edits array entries.
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?
States a specific verb (patch) and resource (file) plus the mechanism: exact before/after replacements with preview or apply. This distinguishes it from kodi_read_file and kodi_backup_file, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.
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?
Gives the key precondition for writes (Kodi must be stopped) and implies the preview-vs-apply choice, but never names alternatives (e.g., kodi_restore_file, kodi_backup_file) or states when a patch is preferable to editing via settings tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.