Skip to main content
Glama

Rename group

rename_group

Rename a group. Pure cosmetic — labels appear in the Inspector and describe_video output.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
groupIdYes
projectIdYesOpaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoThe payload, shaped by the tool.
noteNoWhat to do next when not ready.
errorNoWhy it failed.
statusNoFor cache-backed readers: whether the answer was ready.
editorUrlNoOpens this project in the editor.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / anonymousToken
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "The token create_anonymous_account returned. This connection has no Morpha key, so every call carries it.",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "groupId",
      -  "name",
      -  "projectId",
      -  "anonymousToken"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "groupId",
      +  "name",
      +  "projectId"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "The result envelope every Morpha tool returns.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "data": {
      +      "description": "The payload, shaped by the tool.",
      +      "type": [
      +        "object",
      +        "array",
      +        "string",
      +        "number",
      +        "boolean",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "editorUrl": {
      +      "description": "Opens this project in the editor.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "error": {
      +      "description": "Why it failed.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "description": "What to do next when not ready.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "description": "For cache-backed readers: whether the answer was ready.",
      +      "enum": [
      +        "ready",
      +        "not-ready"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "ok"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / anonymousToken
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The token create_anonymous_account returned. This connection has no Morpha key, so every call carries it.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "groupId",
      -  "name",
      -  "projectId"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "groupId",
      +  "name",
      +  "projectId",
      +  "anonymousToken"
      +]
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the rename has no functional effect and only surfaces as a label in the Inspector and describe_video output, which tells the agent the change is display-only.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope caveat. Nothing extraneous.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves the groupId and name parameters undocumented for a 3-param tool. Adequate for intent, incomplete for invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (only projectId is documented). The description mentions no parameters at all, so groupId and name are left entirely undescribed in both schema and prose. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Rename a group') and the 'pure cosmetic' clause clarifies the effect, distinguishing it from functional siblings like rename_layer or set_group_parent. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to use this versus the many sibling rename_* and group_* tools, nor any prerequisites. 'Pure cosmetic' hints at intent but is not routing guidance.

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