Reorder a JMeter test plan node's direct children by providing the exact new sequence of child IDs.
Reorder a node's direct children. orderedChildIds must be an exact permutation of that node's current children ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | Yes | ||
| parentId | Yes | ||
| orderedChildIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical precondition that orderedChildIds must be an exact permutation of the node's current child ids, which is essential for correct invocation. It does not describe failure behavior, but the key constraint is surfaced.
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 short sentences under 20 words total, with the operation front-loaded and the constraint following immediately. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter reorder operation with no output schema, the description provides the core operation and the essential constraint. It does not mention return value or how to obtain current child ids, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and clear parameter naming.
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 only elaborates on orderedChildIds (stating it must be an exact permutation), leaving planId and parentId to be inferred solely from their names. It adds some semantic value for the key parameter but does not fully cover all three.
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 uses a specific verb ('Reorder') and a precise resource ('a node's direct children'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_element or the add_* family. The phrase 'direct children' clearly scopes the operation, and there is no tautology or ambiguity.
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?
The description implies the use case (reordering a node's direct children) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as move_element or update_element. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.