Rename a project you own (the display name only — the slug, which is the identity in URLs / Redis, never changes). Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and the config scope. 404-equivalent error when you do not own the slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The new display name (1–100 chars). | |
| slug | Yes | The slug of a project you own. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that the slug never changes, which is critical behavioral context. It also discloses authentication requirements and the ownership error case, adding significant transparency.
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 two sentences and densely packed with essential information: purpose, constraints, auth, and error behavior. There is zero redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, authentication, parameter semantics, and failure mode. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 schema already fully documents both parameters, but the description adds semantic value by clarifying that `name` is the display name and `slug` is the immutable identity used in URLs/Redis. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool renames a project, specifying that only the display name changes while the slug remains immutable. It distinguishes the operation from other project-related tools and adds crucial identity semantics.
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 provides clear usage context: you must own the project, need an ACCOUNT-scoped token with the `config` scope, and will get a 404-equivalent error if you don't own the slug. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives, but no other rename tool exists among siblings.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
