Morpha

Rename project

rename_project

Destructive

Update a project's human-readable name (shown in the editor's project picker). Pass an empty string to clear the name and fall back to the id. Doesn't touch any layers, animations, or styles — only the picker label.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New human-readable label. Empty string clears the name and reverts to the id fallback.
`projectId`	Yes	Project to rename.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the call succeeded.
`data`	No	The payload, shaped by the tool.
`note`	No	What to do next when not ready.
`error`	No	Why it failed.
`status`	No	For cache-backed readers: whether the answer was ready.
`editorUrl`	No	Opens this project in the editor.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026

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: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "name",
-  "anonymousToken"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "name"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 11, 2026

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: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "name",
+  "anonymousToken"
+]

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: passing an empty string clears the name and falls back to the id, and the operation is explicitly limited to the picker label. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences deliver the core operation, the edge case, and the scope boundary without any filler. Important information is front-loaded and 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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description plus annotations and complete schema coverage fully cover purpose, edge case, and side-effect boundary. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions. The empty-string clearing behavior is repeated in both the schema and the description, so the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('project's human-readable name'), and clarifies where the name is shown ('the editor's project picker'). The final sentence distinguishes it from broader mutations by stating it doesn't touch layers, animations, or styles.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly scopes when this tool applies: it only changes the picker label, not any other project content, which implicitly tells the agent to use other tools for layer/style changes. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the boundaries are clear enough.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?