Skip to main content
Glama

Forge Engine

by app.forgeengine

rename_screen

Rename a screen IN PLACE — DIRECT; links/elements follow (id-referenced).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact CURRENT name
new_nameYesNew name (must not collide)
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Exact CURRENT screen name."New value: +"Exact CURRENT name"
    • changedInput schema / properties / new_name / description
      Previous value: -"New screen name (must not collide with another screen)."New value: +"New name (must not collide)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Removed value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint: false, which is minimal. The description adds the behavioral detail that links/elements follow because screens are id-referenced, shedding light on side effects. However, it doesn't cover prerequisites, reversibility, or possible collisions beyond the schema's note.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that uses emphasis (caps) to convey key nuances. It is concise and every phrase adds meaning, though could be slightly more structured with a trailing note.

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?

For a simple rename tool with no output schema, the description explains the critical behavioral outcome (links follow) but omits context about project_id disambiguation and how success is indicated. It's adequate for a straightforward tool but not rich.

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?

The description adds no parameter information. Schema coverage is 67%, with descriptions for 'name' and 'new_name', but 'project_id' is undefined. The description's 'id-referenced' clue is too indirect to clarify parameter usage or the role of project_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('screen'), and adds clarity by specifying 'IN PLACE' and 'DIRECT', distinguishing it from proposal-based workflows. It also clarifies the effect on links/elements, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'IN PLACE — DIRECT' implies this is the actual rename action rather than a proposal, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (like propose_screen) or state when not to use it. The description gives context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Forge Engine toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.

Tool Count1/5

With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources