Morpha

rename_layer

Set the human-readable name of a video / image / shape / text layer — the label shown in the Inspector, and the basis for the layer's auto-derived embed attribute (so renaming a layer to "caption" makes the embed attribute caption). Pass an empty string to clear the name. For groups use rename_group.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	New label. Empty string clears it (callers fall back to the filename stem).
`elementId`	Yes	video.<id>, image.<id>, shapes.<id>, or text.<id>.
`projectId`	Yes	Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it discloses the mutation target, the Inspector-label effect, the embed-attribute side effect, and the empty-string clearing behavior. It stops short of mentioning permissions, undo behavior, or what happens to existing embed references after a rename, but for a simple setter operation this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core operation, then adds the two most decision-relevant clarifications (embed-attribute derivation and the group alternative). Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it defines the operation, scope, side effect, clearing behavior, and the sibling to use for groups. The schema documents all parameter formats, and the description adds the behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the name is the Inspector label and that it drives the `<morpha-video>` embed attribute, with a concrete example. It also reinforces the elementId layer-type pattern, though projectId semantics are left to the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('human-readable name of a video / image / shape / text layer'), and clarifies the practical meaning of the label via the Inspector and the auto-derived embed attribute. It also explicitly differentiates the tool from rename_group, so an agent can identify the correct operation without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description says exactly when this tool applies: renaming video, image, shape, or text layers, and explicitly routes group renaming to rename_group. It also gives a concrete use-case example ('renaming a layer to "caption" makes the embed attribute `caption`'), making the selection criteria unambiguous.

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

All Morpha 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.

Tool Count2/5

95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.

Resources

Need Help?