Skip to main content
Glama

Typebar (formerly SuperDocs)

by ai.typebar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partsNoDocument-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>.
titleNoNew document title.
base_partsNoOptional 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_idYes
authorizationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: server-side sanitization of every fragment, versioned writes that are safe under concurrent editors, parts reverting with the document, newest-write-wins semantics, and the `parts_conflicts` reporting behavior. It even documents the specific error code for the legacy payload, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and operation in the first sentence, then layered behavior. It is dense and slightly repetitive with the schema on parts semantics, but every sentence carries real information rather than filler.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 60% param coverage, the description covers error paths, concurrency, sanitization, revert behavior, and conflict reporting well. The remaining gap is the undocumented identity/authorization parameters and the shape of a successful parts response.

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 60%, and the description adds mostly conceptual routing rather than parameter-level meaning. The two fully documented params (`parts`, `base_parts`) already carry the important semantics in the schema, while `document_id` and `authorization` are left undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Rename one of your saved documents') and extends it to out-of-flow parts, and it names an alternative path (chat / document write endpoints) for editing part content. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not directly name a sibling tool by name for the rename-vs-update distinction.

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?

Explicitly says a title-only call is equivalent to the old rename, routes part-content editing elsewhere, and warns that a legacy `parts` payload returns 400 `parts_moved_to_chunks`. That is clear when-to-use and when-not guidance, though it stops short of naming the successor write endpoint.

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) 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