ghidraMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rename_function

Rename a function by its current name to update symbols during reverse engineering. If the current name is ambiguous, use the address-based alternative instead.

Instructions

Rename a function by its current name. Fails if the name is ambiguous; prefer rename_function_by_address.

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": "rename_function"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_name`	Yes
`old_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ambiguity failure mode, but says nothing about permissions/editing requirements, whether cross-references or decompiler caches are updated, or reversibility of the rename.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the failure condition and alternative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits permission requirements and side effects (xref updates, ambiguity handling scope), leaving gaps an agent might need.

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 0% for two parameters (old_name, new_name), so the description must compensate. 'By its current name' clarifies that old_name is the existing symbol name, but new_name's format and constraints are left entirely to the schema's bare titles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a function'), plus the scoping detail 'by its current name'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rename_function_by_address, so an agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit failure condition ('Fails if the name is ambiguous') and routes the agent to the named alternative ('prefer rename_function_by_address'). This is a clear when/when-not/alternative pattern, not implied usage.

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