Skip to main content
Glama

bear_rename_tag

Idempotent

Rename a tag across all Bear notes, updating every note that contains the old tag.

Instructions

Rename a tag across all Bear notes. Every note containing the old tag will be updated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
old_nameYesCurrent tag name (without #)
new_nameYesNew tag name (without #)

Implementation Reference

  • Definition of the 'bear_rename_tag' tool including its input schema (old_name, new_name), description, and annotations.
    bear_rename_tag: {
      tool: {
        name: "bear_rename_tag",
        description:
          "Rename a tag across all Bear notes. Every note containing the old tag will be updated.",
        inputSchema: {
          type: "object" as const,
          properties: {
            old_name: {
              type: "string",
              description: "Current tag name (without #)",
            },
            new_name: {
              type: "string",
              description: "New tag name (without #)",
            },
          },
          required: ["old_name", "new_name"],
        },
        annotations: {
          readOnlyHint: false,
          destructiveHint: false,
          idempotentHint: true,
        },
      },
      buildArgs: (input) => [
        "tag",
        "rename",
        String(input.old_name),
        String(input.new_name),
        "--json",
      ],
  • buildArgs function that constructs the CLI arguments for renaming a tag using 'bcli tag rename <old_name> <new_name> --json'.
    buildArgs: (input) => [
      "tag",
      "rename",
      String(input.old_name),
      String(input.new_name),
      "--json",
    ],
  • Tool registration via ListToolsRequestSchema - all tools from tools.ts are listed to the MCP client.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: Object.values(tools).map((t) => t.tool),
    }));
  • CallToolRequestSchema handler that dispatches incoming tool calls by name, looking up the handler (including bear_rename_tag) from the tools record.
    server.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (request) => {
      const { name, arguments: input } = request.params;
      const handler = tools[name];
    
      if (!handler) {
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: `Unknown tool: ${name}` }],
          isError: true,
        };
      }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.26

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds context beyond the idempotentHint annotation by stating that 'every note containing the old tag will be updated,' indicating a global rename. However, it does not disclose important behaviors such as whether renaming to an existing tag merges or overwrites, or whether the operation is reversible. The annotations already cover idempotency, so the added value is moderate.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and immediately clarifying the scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and effect (renaming across all notes). It could mention idempotency or potential side effects, but given the annotations and simplicity, it is largely complete. The lack of output schema is acceptable as the return value is likely minimal.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (old_name, new_name) stating 'without #'. The description adds no further information about parameter semantics, such as allowed characters or conflicts. Since schema already documents parameters well, the description provides no extra value in this dimension.

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 clearly states the verb 'rename a tag across all Bear notes', specifying the resource (tags across notes) and the scope (all notes). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like bear_add_tag, bear_remove_tag, and bear_delete_tag, which focus on adding, removing, or deleting tags rather than renaming.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., when merging tags might be more appropriate) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling tool names.

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