Linked API

nv_rename_list

Rename an owned custom list. Trimmed name: 1–75 characters, no line breaks. Same name succeeds; duplicates return listAlreadyExists and system lists return listNotRenamable. Returns the renamed list with its id, name, type and url. English interface only. Plus required. Returns a workflow acknowledgement; use get_workflow_result with operationName nvRenameList.

Linked API actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow and may take several minutes. The server returns immediately after starting the workflow with {status: 'pending'|'running', pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message}. To retrieve the final result, call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName — it will long-poll until completion or the request budget elapses, then return either the final result or another in-progress snapshot. Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running; that creates duplicate queued work.

A pending workflow carries pendingReason: 'queued' means it is waiting its turn behind other work on the same account and will start within minutes. 'outsideWorkingHours' means the account has configured working hours and the workflow is parked until they reopen — possibly the next working day. In that case get_workflow_result returns immediately instead of polling, message states when the window opens, and you should report that to the user rather than looping.

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": {
      "listId": "<listId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "nv_rename_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Trimmed name, 1–75 characters without line breaks.
`listId`	Yes	Owned list ID as a string, never a number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes far beyond that by disclosing that the rename is queued into a cloud-browser workflow that may take several minutes, that idempotent renames succeed, and that retrying while a workflow is running creates duplicate queued work. It also explains pendingReason semantics ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours') and that the latter returns immediately and should be surfaced to the user rather than polled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and validation rules are front-loaded well, but the bulk of the text is generic workflow boilerplate that repeats what get_workflow_result exists to do, and the return story is muddled: one sentence promises 'the renamed list with its id, name, type and url' while the next says the call returns a workflow acknowledgement. That internal tension forces the reader to reconcile two conflicting return expectations.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essentials for an async mutation: mutation semantics, idempotency, error codes, subscription requirement, and how to retrieve the eventual result. It loses a point because the actual return contract is ambiguous (list object vs. pending-acknowledgement envelope) and it never says what happens for an unknown or inaccessible listId.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already carries the 1–75 length bounds, the no-line-break pattern, and the 'string, never a number' note for listId, so the description's restatement of the naming rules adds no new constraint information. The one genuinely additive parameter fact is that reusing the existing name is a success rather than a duplicate error, which is behavioral semantics for the name field.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Rename an owned custom list.' The 'owned' qualifier immediately separates it from nv_create_list, nv_delete_list and from system lists, so an agent can pick it out of the sibling list 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?

It spells out the preconditions and failure modes clearly: owned lists only, system lists return listNotRenamable, duplicates return listAlreadyExists, and a Plus subscription is required. It also routes the agent to get_workflow_result for the result. What it does not do is state positively when to choose this over a recreate/delete-and-create workaround, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

All Linked API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.