Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

data_rename_datastore

Rename a datastore. Only the name changes — the id, URL/deeplink and shares stay stable (grants are keyed by id). Governance right required (owner, or the org/platform admin governing it). The new name must be free for the same owner.

Use this to lift a name collision (e.g. two reconcile_log across orgs) before transferring/consolidating: rename one side, then transfer with oto_resource.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "datastore": "<datastore>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "data_rename_datastore"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
new_nameYesthe new kebab-case name (must be unique for the owner).
datastoreYescurrent datastore (or `slot:<name>` under the active project).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the permission requirement (owner, or the org/platform admin governing it), the invariant that grants/shares are keyed by id and survive the rename, and the uniqueness precondition for the new name. These are exactly the failure and side-effect facts an agent needs before mutating shared state.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the permission/constraint, then the recommended workflow. The parenthetical example earns its space by making a collision concrete; nothing is padded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect scope, authorization, invariants and the recommended workflow well. It stops short of saying what happens on a name conflict (hard error vs. suggestion) or what the call returns, which would fully close the loop for a 6-parameter mutating tool.

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%, so both required parameters (`datastore` including the `slot:<name>` form and `new_name` with its kebab-case/unique constraint) are already documented. The description largely restates the uniqueness constraint and adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Rename a datastore') and immediately bounds the effect ('Only the name changes'), which separates it cleanly from siblings such as data_create_datastore, data_delete_datastore and data_update_where. The scope statement (id, URL/deeplink and shares untouched) makes the operation unambiguous to an agent.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use scenario (resolving a name collision such as two `reconcile_log` across orgs before a transfer/consolidation) and names the follow-up tool to use after renaming (`oto_resource`). The agent is routed both into and out of this tool without inference.

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

All Tulina toolsInspect
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