Fine Structure

Rename App File

rename_app_file

Rename or move one app source file atomically. Internally stages an upsert at new_path and a delete at old_path, validates the resulting app state, and creates a Saved Version before applying.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	Apply even if validation reports blocking errors
`app_id`	Yes	The app ID
`new_path`	Yes	New virtual file path
`old_path`	Yes	Existing virtual file path to rename
`overwrite`	No	Allow replacing an existing file at new_path

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With minimal annotations, the description discloses atomicity, internal upsert/delete, validation, and Saved Version creation. This extends beyond the schema and gives the agent confidence about side effects.

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?

Two sentences, crisp and front-loaded with purpose. No filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, it covers atomicity, validation, and saved versions. It doesn't specify return value/error behavior, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces old_path/new_path roles but adds no extra param detail not already available.

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?

Explicitly states 'Rename or move one app source file atomically', identifying the resource and action. The internal steps distinguish it from write/patch operations even without naming siblings.

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?

Description implies its use for renames/moves but does not explicitly state when to use over write_app_file or patch_app_file. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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

All Fine Structure tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.

Resources

Need Help?