reorder_documentsChange the sort order of EXISTING documents in one atomic transaction. It creates nothing: to place a new document, pass order to create_document instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| updates | Yes | The documents whose order changed, as { id, order }. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal this is not read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is atomic and creates nothing. This goes beyond what the schema or annotations provide. It leaves some edge semantics unstated, such as how order values are interpreted, but the atomicity and no-creation guarantees are meaningful.
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, no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is named in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 reorder operation with a clear schema, this description covers the essential usage context: existing documents only, atomic behavior, and routing for new documents. The required parameters are documented in the schema, and the annotations convey the mutating nature. Nothing critical is missing.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both projectId and updates. The description's mention of 'order' reinforces the key parameter but does not need to expand on it because the schema already documents the structure and purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Change'), resource ('sort order of EXISTING documents'), and a key distinguishing constraint ('It creates nothing'). It clearly separates this tool from create_document, which is a sibling, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool (reordering existing documents) and names the alternative for new documents ('pass order to create_document instead'). This is direct, actionable guidance that prevents misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.
Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.
With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.
The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.