Typebar (formerly SuperDocs)

rename_document

Rename one of your saved documents and/or update its out-of-flow parts. Parts are the document's out-of-flow content — headers/footers, footnote and endnote bodies, comments, and per-section page geometry. Every fragment is sanitized on write, writes are versioned and safe under concurrent editors, and parts revert with the document. A title-only call behaves exactly as the original rename (response status:"renamed"). Part content lives in the document body and is edited exactly like any other document content (via chat or the document write endpoints); a legacy parts payload returns 400 parts_moved_to_chunks pointing you there.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "rename_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`parts`	No	Document-parts patch — the document's OUT-OF-FLOW content, keyed by any of: sections, headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, comments. Each key you send REPLACES that whole part family; a null value clears it; keys you omit are untouched. Every HTML fragment is sanitized server-side. Headers/footers are keyed by section index with default/first/even variants; dynamic page fields use <span data-field="PAGE\|NUMPAGES\|DATE">cached text</span>.
`title`	No	New document title.
`base_parts`	No	Optional concurrency guard: the parts subtree your edit was based on (as last read). If another writer changed one of the same part families since, your write still lands (newest-write-wins) and the overwritten families are reported in `parts_conflicts`. Send it whenever you can — it makes the report PRECISE. Omit it and the write is treated as unvouched: every family whose existing content your payload replaces or clears is reported in `parts_conflicts`, since without a base the server cannot tell an intended update from an accidental overwrite. Each family you send REPLACES that family whole, so sibling entries you omit (e.g. the `first`-page header variant) are deleted.
`document_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / authorization

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "title": "Authorization"
-}

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does provide valuable details: sanitization on write, versioning, concurrent-editor safety, reversion with the document, and a `status:"renamed"` response for title-only calls. However, the statement that a legacy `parts` payload returns 400 conflicts with the schema's documented `parts` patch behavior, making the write semantics unclear. It also does not mention permissions or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably front-loaded, leading with the rename-and-parts purpose, then explaining part behavior and title-only equivalence. It is somewhat dense and the final legacy-payload sentence is confusing, but overall no large section feels gratuitous.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry behavioral context, and it does cover sanitization, versioning, concurrency, reversion, and some return behavior. However, it omits `document_id` semantics and leaves a major ambiguity around whether `parts` is usable, despite the schema presenting it as a supported parameter. That ambiguity is important for correct 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 description coverage is 75% and the schema already explains `parts`, `base_parts`, and `title` in detail, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds some context about out-of-flow part families, but its statement that a legacy `parts` payload returns `400 parts_moved_to_chunks` directly conflicts with the schema's `parts` patch parameter, creating confusion about whether `parts` is accepted. It also does not describe `document_id` beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: renaming a saved document and optionally updating its out-of-flow parts. It names the concrete part families and distinguishes title-only behavior from part updates. It is clear enough to identify the tool, though the later 'legacy parts returns 400' statement creates some ambiguity about whether part updating still belongs to this tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives some useful routing: a title-only call behaves as the original rename, and legacy `parts` payloads return a 400 that points to chat or document write endpoints. However, it does not clearly reconcile when to use this tool's `parts` parameter versus those alternatives, because the schema still documents `parts` as an accepted patch. This leaves the agent with conflicting usage guidance.

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

All Typebar (formerly SuperDocs) 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.