file_renameRename a file or directory on an fnOS NAS by specifying its path and new name. This write operation updates names without moving or copying data.
重命名文件/目录（写操作）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| name | Yes | 新名称（不含路径） | |
| path | Yes | NAS 上的路径，如 /vol1/1000/文档 | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that this is a write operation, but does not explain overwrite behavior, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens when the target name already exists.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a mutation tool. Brevity is not enough to make it genuinely helpful.
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?
This is a write operation with no annotations and six parameters. Although an output schema exists, the description does not cover behavioral expectations such as error handling, overwrite rules, or authentication/context needs, leaving it incomplete for an agent to invoke safely.
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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no details about path, name, host, port, scheme, or profile beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a clear verb (rename) and resource (file/directory), and notes that it is a write operation. It does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as file_move or baidu_rename, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than file_move, file_copy, or baidu_rename, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.