Skip to main content
Glama

Rename category

update_category
Idempotent

Rename a category in a knowledge base (updates all articles with that category)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "knowledgeBaseId": "<knowledgeBaseId>",
      "categoryName": "<categoryName>",
      "newName": "<newName>"
    },
    "name": "update_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
newNameYesNew category name
categoryNameYesCurrent category name
knowledgeBaseIdYesKnowledge base ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: renaming propagates to all articles carrying that category, which is the key side effect an agent needs to know. It stops short of describing behavior on name collisions or whether the new name must be unique.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope-defining cascade note in parentheses. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what changes, the cascade effect, and idempotency. Only edge-case behavior such as duplicate-name handling or failure modes is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the three parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (a category in a knowledge base), and the parenthetical clarifies the cascade to articles. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings create_category and delete_category, which share the same resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for changing an existing category's name, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions or whether the category must exist), and no named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources