Change the order of a node's input connections by providing its path and a new index sequence, e.g. [1, 0] swaps the first two inputs.
Reorder the input connections of a node.
Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. new_order: New input ordering (e.g. [1, 0] swaps first two).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_order | Yes | ||
| node_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that inputs are reordered, without explaining whether existing connections are preserved, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what errors can occur. This is a significant gap 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?
The description is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. However, the Args list includes 'ctx: MCP context,' which is not a schema parameter and could confuse an agent about what it must supply. The remaining args simply repeat schema titles, so there is some waste.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides the basic action and a partial parameter hint, but omits prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, and usage context. It is not complete enough for safe and correct invocation.
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 must compensate. It does add meaning for new_order with the example '[1, 0] swaps first two,' but node_path is only described as 'Node path' with no format or example, and it does not clarify whether indexing is 0-based. Partial compensation warrants a 3.
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 and resource: 'Reorder the input connections of a node.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like connect_nodes or disconnect_node. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus connect_nodes, disconnect_node, or other input-management tools, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an active Houdini session or a valid node context. The purpose implies the use case, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.