FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_rename_account

Rename a wallet (account nickname), then call confirm_proposal with the returned proposalId.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "nickname": "<nickname>"
    },
    "name": "propose_rename_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nickname`	Yes	New nickname (2–64 characters)
`accountId`	Yes	Wallet id from list_wallets

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this does not rename directly but produces a proposal that must be confirmed. It omits who may propose, whether approval thresholds apply, and whether the old nickname is preserved.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the sequencing instruction is placed immediately after the action. Nothing is wasted, though it could be slightly richer without bloat.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return information ('the returned proposalId') and the required next call. That covers the essentials an agent needs to complete the workflow.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including length constraints and the source of accountId. The description only adds the gloss that nickname is an account nickname, which is marginal added meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a wallet (account nickname)'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_wallet_metadata, which an agent might reasonably confuse with an account-rename operation.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the follow-up step: call confirm_proposal with the returned proposalId, making the two-step governance workflow clear. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over update_wallet_metadata or what happens if the proposal is never confirmed.

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

All FortFi Treasury MCP 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.

Resources

Need Help?