rename_media_fileRename a media file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Media file ID (from list_media) | |
| name | Yes | New file name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The file as saved — id, name and url. The url does not change. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The file as saved — id, name and url. The url does not change.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention effects on references, permissions, name constraints, or reversibility. It is not misleading, but it also does not enrich the agent's understanding of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is minimal enough that it adds little beyond the tool title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits useful context such as name format constraints or whether renaming affects existing references, which would help an agent invoke it more safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: id as 'Media file ID (from list_media)' and name as 'New file name'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a media file'. It is clear and distinguishes from siblings like rename_connection by naming the target resource, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archive_media_file, move_media_to_folder, or update_media_folder. It simply restates the operation without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.