Skip to main content
Glama

Gradient Dynamics: thermal and CFD simulation

Rename job

rename_job
Idempotent

Change a job’s display name without changing its saved settings, outputs or compute state.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "rename_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
job_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description earns credit beyond that by specifying the mutation is cosmetic only and does not alter saved settings, outputs or compute state, which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before renaming a running job.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the preserved state second, with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry idempotency and safety traits. What remains thin is parameter-level detail and any note on authorization or behavior when the job_id is unknown, which for a two-parameter tool is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the string parameter is a display name and that the target is a job, but it never names either parameter, gives no length bound or format guidance, and adds nothing about the uuid identifier.

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 ('Change a job's display name') and immediately scopes the mutation by listing what is left untouched (saved settings, outputs, compute state). This lets an agent distinguish it from mutating or destructive siblings such as cancel_job or delete_job.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself – you use it when a job's display name needs correcting – but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is adequate context without routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources