Update sorting-prefixes settings in Audiobookshelf via API. Modify how library items are sorted by adjusting prefix rules.
Update api sorting-prefixes.
PATCH /api/sorting-prefixes
Args: body: Request payload. Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond saying 'Update', so it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or partial-update semantics. It is consistent with annotations but provides no additional transparency.
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-loaded, with a one-line summary, the endpoint, and an args note. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the tool name and summary, but there is no filler. It earns its place as a concise reference.
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?
The tool is an opaque PATCH with a single open body object, and the description defers field knowledge to a 'matching GET' or '/schema endpoint'. However, no get_sorting_prefixes or schema tool appears in the sibling list, so that instruction may not be actionable for the agent. Return values are covered by the output schema, but request construction remains under-specified.
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 coverage is 0% and the body is an open additionalProperties object, so the description carries the burden. It usefully identifies body as a 'Request payload' and tells the agent to discover fields from GET or /schema, which is a practical pointer. However, it does not enumerate or explain the actual fields, leaving invocation dependent on external discovery.
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 clearly identifies the operation as updating the api sorting-prefixes resource and includes the exact PATCH endpoint. It distinguishes this tool from sibling patch_* tools by resource name, though it does not explain what sorting-prefixes are.
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?
It instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before sending a body, which is a useful precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Selection is implied by the resource name rather than made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.