nuvio_reorder_addonsReorder a profile's addons by listing each installed addon URL once in the desired order; the previous state is saved for undo.
Set the display order of a profile's addons. Provide every installed addon URL exactly once, in the desired order. The previous state is snapshotted before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_id | No | ||
| ordered_urls | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that 'The previous state is snapshotted before the write; revert with nuvio_undo.' This gives the agent insight into undo/revert capability and a snapshotting side-effect that the annotations alone do not convey, without contradicting the `readOnlyHint: false` or `destructiveHint: false` 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?
Three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, required input semantics, and revert behavior. No filler words or redundant restatement of the title; the key constraint is front-loaded.
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 description is complete enough for a simple write tool with two parameters and no output schema: its behavior, the meaning of `ordered_urls`, and a revert path are covered. The only notable gap is the undocumented `profile_id` semantics, but the schema provides its name, type, default, and range, so an agent can infer meaning without it.
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 explains `ordered_urls` fully: it must include every installed addon URL exactly once, in the desired order. However, it does not mention `profile_id`, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's type, default, and constraints. The partial compensation gives a score of 3, not 5.
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 and resource: 'Set the display order of a profile's addons.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and, combined with the sibling names `nuvio_reorder_plugins` and `nuvio_reorder_collections`, an agent can distinguish it from other reorder tools before opening any schema.
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 provides operational guidance, telling the caller to 'Provide every installed addon URL exactly once, in the desired order.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling reorder tools or mention any exclusions; the usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.