Rearrange delay profiles by ID to set processing order. Specify the profile ID and the profile it should follow, adjusting download priority.
Update DelayProfile.
PUT /api/v3/delayprofile/reorder/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter. after: Query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| after | No |
| 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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true), but the description adds no behavioral context such as what reordering affects, whether 'after' is optional, or how the list order changes. It merely repeats the endpoint and parameter locations, adding no value beyond annotations.
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 not overly verbose, but it is under-specified. The opening line 'Update DelayProfile.' is redundant with the tool name, and the args list is terse. Structure is adequate but not well front-loaded with the key differentiating information.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the operation's semantics are unclear. An agent cannot determine what 'after' means, whether reordering is relative to another profile, or how to achieve a specific order. The description is inadequate for a tool with two parameters and no param descriptions.
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 explain parameters. It only identifies 'id' as a path parameter and 'after' as a query parameter, but does not explain the meaning of 'after' (e.g., the ID of the profile after which this one should be placed, or what null means). This is minimal added value over the bare schema.
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?
Description says 'Update DelayProfile' which is identical to the sibling tool update_delayprofile_by_id and gives no hint of the reorder semantics. The endpoint path includes '/reorder/' but the text does not explain that this tool reorders profiles; it is vague and fails to distinguish from the sibling.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say to use this tool for reordering delay profiles or mention update_delayprofile_by_id for editing profile fields. The agent is left to infer the purpose from the tool name and endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.