R3

Rename an R3 project

r3_project_rename

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a project: the name shown in the user's project list, the editor's title and the live page. The same change as clicking the title in the R3 editor, kept at once in the project's live copy (every open R3 tab shows it).

The public address does not change: a preview or live link keeps working. Scripts are not affected (they never address the project by name). Renaming a COMPONENT is not this tool: that is done in the R3 editor.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The new name. Leading and trailing spaces are trimmed. Max 120 characters.
`projectId`	Yes	The project to rename, from r3_project_list or r3_project_create.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seq`	No
`name`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`changed`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`previousName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / answer

Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "name",
-  "previousName",
-  "changed"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "name",
+  "previousName",
+  "changed",
+  "answer"
+]

AddedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, destructive, open-world, so the safety bar is partly pre-filled; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the propagation model ('kept at once in the project's live copy', every open tab updates) and the non-effects (public address stable, scripts unaffected). It stays silent on whether a rename can be undone or reverts, which is the one behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and its effects in the first sentence, then a scoped 'what does not change' paragraph, then the sibling exclusion. Parentheticals are short and each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, propagation, and exclusions for a low-complexity 2-param mutation. The only omitted element is reversibility/undo behavior, a minor gap for a rename.

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 description coverage is 100%: trimming behavior, 120-char limit, and the projectId provenance (r3_project_list / r3_project_create) are all in the schema. The description contributes nothing additional about the two parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) and resource (a project), then enumerates exactly where the change lands: project list, editor title, live page. It also names the near-miss sibling case ('Renaming a COMPONENT is not this tool'), so an agent can separate this from r3_component_set or r3_editor_set without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete equivalence ('the same change as clicking the title in the R3 editor') and an explicit exclusion for component renaming. It does not name a competing project tool by name (e.g., r3_editor_set), so it stops just short of full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?