Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASCII Motion MCP

ASCII Motion MCP

by CameronFoxly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rename_layer

Rename any layer in your ASCII art project to organize and identify elements clearly.

Instructions

Rename a layer.

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": {
      "layerId": "<layerId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerIdYesID of the layer to rename
nameYesNew layer name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.4

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing effects, prerequisites, or side effects. For a simple rename, this is minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence clearly stating the tool's purpose. No extraneous text; highly efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but missing context like whether the layer must exist or if renaming affects references. Could be more complete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Rename a layer' clearly specifies the action (rename) and the resource (layer), distinguishing it from siblings like add_layer or remove_layer.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layer_properties or get_layer_properties. The description implies use for renaming, but lacks explicit context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools