Skip to main content
Glama

Rename, move or share folders and assets

items_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename, move and/or change the sharing of folders and assets, up to 20 items per call, each with its own result. Per item: id (a folder id, an asset id, or a version id) plus at least one of: title (renames the folder, or the asset; a version id renames its asset), version_title (names that one version, as in the app's version list; version ids only), folder_id (move into this folder, or "root" for the team's top level; a version id moves its whole asset), link_access (what anyone with the item's link can do: comment_and_notes (comment and read version notes and files), comment, view, or none to close the link; never full_access), team_access (what the team's members can do by default: full_access, comment, view or none). Folders take view or none for the link and full_access, view or none for the team (no comment). Sharing is the app's Share tab: the item's url is the link to share. Change sharing only when the user asks. A folder cannot move into itself or its subfolders, nothing moves into an asset (to make media a version use versions_add, or upload with version_of), and nothing moves between teams. Each item is applied on its own and is not undone if another fails. An item already in the requested state reports changed: {} (safe to repeat). Each result lists changed fields as [from, to], so you can revert by calling again with the from values. Needs edit access on the item and on the target folder. The user's open Flask tabs are prompted to refresh.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes1-20 items to change

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description discloses partial-failure semantics ('applied on its own and is not undone if another fails'), idempotency behavior ('an item already in the requested state reports changed: {}'), revert guidance via [from, to] pairs, the required edit access on item and target folder, and the Flask tab refresh side effect.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the body is a dense semicolon-chained run-on that would benefit from grouping into shorter statements. Size is justified by the tool's complexity, so only structure loses a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the result shape (per-item results, changed fields as [from, to], changed: {}), and it covers constraints, permissions, and side effects. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds real semantic meaning the schema does not: a version id renames/moves its whole asset, folder_id accepts 'root', folders are restricted to view/none for link and full_access/view/none for team, and link_access can never be full_access.

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 states a specific set of verbs (rename, move, share) over a specific resource (folders and assets), and immediately bounds the scope (up to 20 items per call). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like versions_add or upload_file_complete, which it names directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit exclusions and alternatives: 'Change sharing only when the user asks', 'to make media a version use versions_add, or upload with version_of'. It also names the routing rule for version ids, folder moves, and cross-team limits, leaving little to inference.

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.