Rename a destination
Sets or clears a destination's nickname. This is the only editable field: bank details are immutable at the partner, so anything else wrong means deleting the recipient and creating a new one.
Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nickname | Yes | The new nickname. An empty string clears it. | |
| destinationId | Yes | The destination to rename. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_tokenRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds the constraint that bank details are immutable and describes the fallback of deleting/recreating. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true) and adds context beyond them. The 'Free.' note is unexplained but harmless.
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 mostly concise and front-loads the action, but the trailing 'Free.' is ambiguous and does not earn its place. The title is repeated from annotations, adding slight redundancy.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers scope, limitations, and alternatives. No critical information is missing for correct usage.
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 documents both parameters, including that an empty string clears the nickname. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 given 100% schema coverage.
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 verb ('sets or clears') and the resource ('destination's nickname'), making it distinct from other update tools. It also notes this is the only editable field, differentiating it from siblings like update_payment_recipient or delete_banking_recipient.
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?
Explicitly explains when not to use the tool: bank details are immutable, so any other change requires deleting and recreating the recipient. This gives clear guidance on alternatives, though it does not name specific sibling tools directly.
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.