Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ThreadPage

by page.thread
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rename a folder

rename_folder
DestructiveIdempotent

Change a Folder's name and nothing else: its Threads, Folders and place stay as they are (move_folder moves it). Needs Can edit and organize. expected_revision is not compared: the last rename wins. A live sibling with the same name answers folder_name_conflict; a Folder in Trash, entity_deleted (restore_folder first). Answers a receipt with the new revision and url; the same operation_id answers it again instead of renaming twice.

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes1–200 characters.
folder_idYesA Folder's id, from list_folders or list_threads.
operation_idYesA new UUID for each write. After a lost answer, send the identical call with the same one, or check get_operation before writing again.
expected_revisionYesIts revision from list_threads, get_thread, list_folders or get_note (not a content_revision); not compared.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected_revision / description
      Previous value: -"The revision you last read for it."New value: +"Its revision from list_threads, get_thread, list_folders or get_note (not a content_revision); not compared."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), it discloses that expected_revision is not compared and the last rename wins, enumerates two named error outcomes (folder_name_conflict, entity_deleted), and describes the receipt (new revision and url) plus operation_id replay behavior. That is exactly the mutation/permission/retry context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope statement, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (permissions, revision semantics, error names, receipt/replay). It is dense with parenthetical clauses that take some parsing, but there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a 4-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: precondition (edit permission), no-op semantics of expected_revision, both failure modes with remedies, the return receipt shape, and retry safety via operation_id. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 explains operation_id replay, expected_revision provenance, and the 1–200 character name bound. The description mostly restates the 'expected_revision is not compared' and idempotency semantics already present in the parameter descriptions, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change a Folder's name') and immediately bounds the scope with 'and nothing else: its Threads, Folders and place stay as they are'. The parenthetical '(move_folder moves it)' explicitly separates it from the closest sibling, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use move_folder to relocate, use restore_folder first when the folder is in Trash, and the call requires 'Can edit and organize'. It also states the alternative path when the name collides (folder_name_conflict), covering both when-to-use and when-not.

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

All ThreadPage toolsInspect
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