Rename a file or folder within a directory by specifying the current directory, file name, and new name. Resolves the need to change file or folder names programmatically.
Rename a file or folder within a directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| file_name | Yes | ||
| current_directory | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation but omits important details such as overwrite behavior, path restrictions, error conditions, or whether new_name may include a different directory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler; the core operation is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is a model of concise description, even though it sacrifices depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and underexplained parameters, the description is too thin. It leaves meaningful ambiguity around overwrite behavior, path semantics, and how it relates to move/copy sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level details. The parameter names and the phrase 'within a directory' hint at basic meaning, but path format and whether new_name can move the item are left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('file or folder within a directory'), so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly contrast it against sibling tools like ecp_files_move or ecp_files_copy, but the rename action is reasonably distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when a move/copy operation would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.