Reorder a device within its track, return, or master chain by setting current and new index, fixing effect order when newly loaded devices are appended last.
Reorder a device in its chain (load_device always appends at the end, e.g. move an EQ in front of the master Limiter).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | track | |
| new_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes | ||
| device_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only discloses the reordering effect. It says nothing about permissions, how indices shift for other devices after a move, out-of-range behavior, or whether the move is reversible. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the load_device contrast and example following efficiently. No wasted words, though it could have spent a few more tokens on parameters.
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 three-required-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. An agent lacks the parameter indexing semantics needed to call it correctly across track/return/master kinds.
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 schema provides no help beyond names and types. The description never explains track_index, device_index, new_index, or the kind enum's role, only implying that new_index is the target position via the example. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Reorder a device in its chain' clearly states the action and target, and the parenthetical contrast with load_device distinguishes it from a nearby sibling. It does not explicitly name other siblings like set_chain, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 explains when this tool is needed: load_device always appends at the end, so use move_device to reposition. The EQ-before-Limiter example makes the use case concrete. It stops short of stating exclusions or the full set of alternatives, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.