Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ArchiveBox API

ArchiveBox API

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Rename tag

archivebox_rename_tag

Rename a tag in ArchiveBox by its tag ID and specify the new name to keep archive labels organized.

Instructions

POST /api/v1/core/tag/{tag_id}/rename

Rename a tag.

Args: tag_id: Tag id. name: New name.

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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "archivebox_rename_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
tag_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.6.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds nothing beyond restating the name and the HTTP route — it does not say what happens if the new name collides with an existing tag, whether snapshots keep the tag, or whether the operation is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded with the operation name, but the raw HTTP route line and the Args block largely duplicate the schema rather than adding value. Every sentence does not earn its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail about side effects, the description is too thin. It omits what a successful rename returns and what error conditions (invalid id, duplicate name) the agent should anticipate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. Instead it offers tautologies: 'tag_id: Tag id' and 'name: New name', which add no format, constraint, or sourcing information (e.g., where tag_id comes from, name length/uniqueness rules).

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 states a specific verb+resource combination ('Rename a tag'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_tag, delete_tag, or get_tag. It does not explicitly reference any sibling tool, but the CRUD verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archivebox_create_tag, archivebox_delete_tag, or archivebox_search_tags. No prerequisites, conflict conditions, or post-conditions are mentioned.

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