Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rename a saved list

argorant_rename_list
Idempotent

Give a saved list or saved search a new name. Its people and its id stay the same. Use it only to rename; to change who is in a list use argorant_create_list with list_id or argorant_remove_list_items. It is free. Tell the user the new name. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#lists

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_rename_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe new name.
list_idYesThe list to rename, from argorant_list_lists.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the people and id are preserved, the call is free, and the agent should report the new name to the user. It does not cover failure modes such as name collisions or validation limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the operational constraints follow in a sensible order. A couple of short fragments ('It is free.', 'Tell the user the new name.') and the docs link add slight noise, but nothing is genuinely redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, side effects, cost, and alternatives. The remaining gap is error/permission behavior, which an agent might want for a mutation call, but it is not required to invoke the tool 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%, so both parameters are already documented, including that list_id comes from argorant_list_lists and name is capped at 200 characters. The description reinforces that the id is unchanged but adds no new syntax or format meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (rename a saved list or saved search) and immediately clarifies scope: only the name changes, people and id stay the same. This lets an agent distinguish it from argorant_create_list, argorant_delete_list, and argorant_rename_folder without opening any schema.

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 restricts usage ('Use it only to rename') and routes membership changes to argorant_create_list and argorant_remove_list_items. The alternative given is slightly confusing — 'argorant_create_list with list_id' reads oddly for adding people to an existing list — but the when-not guidance is still unusually clear.

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

All Argorant 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