Morpha

Rename version

rename_version

Destructive

Rename a saved version's human-readable label (what the user sees in the picker). The v<N> partner-facing identifier is unaffected — only the display name changes. Accepts the version's UUID id or the v<N> shorthand. Empty / whitespace-only names are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	New human-readable label. Must be a non-empty string.
`projectId`	Yes	Project whose version to rename.
`versionId`	Yes	Version to rename. UUID `id` or `v<N>` shorthand.

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: only the display name changes, the `v<N>` identifier is unaffected, and empty/whitespace-only names are rejected. These details help the agent predict side effects accurately.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: what is renamed, what remains unchanged, and accepted inputs/validation. The most important distinction is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter rename operation with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers semantics, validation, and side-effect boundaries. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents all parameters including the UUID/v<N> shorthand and non-empty requirement. The description adds small extra meaning ('what the user sees in the picker', whitespace rejection) but mostly restates what the schema provides. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('a saved version's human-readable label'), and immediately distinguishes it from the partner-facing `v<N>` identifier. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_version, restore_version, and save_version, so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs.

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 gives clear context: it is for changing the display label seen in the picker, not the identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives like restore_version or delete_version, but the purpose and scope are unambiguous enough that an agent can infer when to use this tool.

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?