Skip to main content
Glama

rename_view

Idempotent

Rename a view in an Airtable base by specifying the base ID, view ID, and the new name to assign.

Instructions

Rename a view.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesThe Airtable base/application ID
viewIdYesThe view ID to rename (e.g. "viwXXX")
newNameYesThe new name for the view
debugNoWhen true, include raw Airtable response in output for diagnostics

Implementation Reference

  • The AirtableClient method that sends the rename view request to Airtable's internal API endpoint /v0.3/view/{id}/updateName with payload { name, origin: 'viewName' }.
     * Rename a view.
     * Real endpoint: /v0.3/view/{id}/updateName
     * Payload: { name: "...", origin: "viewName" }
     */
    async renameView(appId, viewId, newName) {
      assertAirtableId(appId, 'appId');
      assertAirtableId(viewId, 'viewId');
      const url = `https://airtable.com/v0.3/view/${viewId}/updateName`;
      const payload = { name: newName, origin: 'viewName' };
    
      const res = await this.auth.postForm(url, this._mutationParams(payload, appId), appId);
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        const errBody = await res.text().catch(() => '');
        throw new Error(`renameView failed (${res.status}): ${errBody}`);
      }
    
      this.cache.invalidate(appId);
      return res.json();
    }
  • The MCP tool handler function for 'rename_view' — it calls the AirtableClient.renameView method and returns the result.
    async rename_view({ appId, viewId, newName, debug }) {
      const result = await client.renameView(appId, viewId, newName);
      return ok(
        { renamed: true, viewId, newName },
        result,
        debug,
      );
    },
  • The schema definition for the 'rename_view' tool — specifies input parameters (appId, viewId, newName) and metadata.
    {
      name: 'rename_view',
      description: 'Rename a view.',
      annotations: { readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false },
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          appId: { type: 'string', description: 'The Airtable base/application ID' },
          viewId: { type: 'string', description: 'The view ID to rename (e.g. "viwXXX")' },
          newName: { type: 'string', description: 'The new name for the view' },
          debug: debugProp,
        },
        required: ['appId', 'viewId', 'newName'],
      },
    },
  • The tool is registered in TOOL_CATEGORIES under the 'view-write' category, which controls profile-based enable/disable.
    rename_view:            'view-write',
  • Documentation/skill template entry describing rename_view tool usage.
    | \`rename_view\` | Rename a view. |
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false) behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the rename triggers schema changes or affects other views, but the annotations suffice.

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 description is extremely concise at four words, avoiding any fluff. It is front-loaded and directly states the purpose, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 simple rename operation with full schema and annotation coverage, the description is complete enough. No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior is straightforward and well-covered by other fields.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with full descriptions. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description 'Rename a view' clearly states the action and target resource. It aligns well with the tool name and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rename_table' or 'rename_field' by specifying 'view'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_view_description' or other rename tools. The description offers no context for appropriate usage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Automations-Project/VSCode-Airtable-Formula'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server