wara

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

altium_rename_parameter

Idempotent

Rename a parameter on specified components or all components containing it. Preview by default; apply writes changes in memory without saving.

Instructions

Rename a parameter on the given components, or on every component that has it when designators is omitted (at most 500). Refused if the new name already exists on a component. apply=false (default) only previews and never touches Altium; apply=true writes. Edits stay in memory: the document is left modified but NOT saved, and Ctrl+Z in Altium undoes them. Requires the server to be in read_write mode.

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": {
      "old_name": "<old_name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "altium_rename_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apply`	No
`new_name`	Yes
`old_name`	Yes
`designators`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description is excellent at detailing behavioral traits: it distinguishes between preview mode and live write mode, explains that edits are non-persistent (in-memory only) and reversible via Ctrl+Z, and lists necessary server requirements.

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?

The description is highly dense and efficient. It front-loads crucial logic (scope, limitations) and clearly separates operational modes and prerequisites into logical clauses.

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?

The description is exceptionally complete. It covers scope, execution constraints (write/preview), state management (in-memory), and system requirements, leaving no ambiguity about tool behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description is vital. It provides specific logic for the 'designators' parameter (default behavior, maximum limit of 500) and clarifies the purpose of the 'apply' flag.

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 purpose is explicit: to 'Rename a parameter.' It clearly defines two scopes of action: renaming specific components or renaming all components that have the parameter.

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?

It guides usage by explaining the difference between supplying 'designators' and omitting them. It also warns against a common failure mode: being refused if the new name already exists on a component.

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

Deploy Server