Skip to main content
Glama

Milanote MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Rename board

rename_board
Destructive

Change a board's title. Renames the board everywhere it shows: its card on the parent board, the breadcrumb and search. The board_id and the links to it stay the same. Your Home cannot be renamed.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "rename_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesNew title.
board_idYesBoard ID from list_boards, or the board URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the rename propagates to the parent card, breadcrumb, and search, while the board_id and existing links stay intact. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, propagation scope, and the Home limitation. There is no wasted 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and a key limitation. It does not discuss idempotency or error behavior, but those gaps are minor for this tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description only indirectly touches on board_id by noting it stays the same, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a board's title.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_board, duplicate_board, and delete operations. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the 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?

The description gives a clear context for when to use it: changing a board's title. It also includes an important exclusion, 'Your Home cannot be renamed,' which prevents a failed call. It does not name alternative tools, but for a rename operation there is no obvious sibling alternative.

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.