journal-renameRenames a journal entry in Foundry VTT using its ID and a new name, giving you direct control over journal titles.
Give a journal a new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | The new name. | |
| journalId | Yes | Id of the journal, from list-journals. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.2609.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't contradict them either. It doesn't mention whether the rename affects references to the journal, which could be useful context.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. It could arguably be more informative, but for a simple rename operation, it's appropriately concise.
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?
For a simple two-parameter rename operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't mention whether the rename is reflected in references or links to the journal, which could be relevant in a VTT context where journals are often linked to actors, quests, or scenes.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Give a journal a new name' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (journal), and the title reinforces it. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like journal-create or journal-set-page, but the action is specific enough that an agent can infer the purpose.
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?
The description implies when to use it (when you want to rename a journal), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list includes journal-create, journal-delete, and journal-set-page, but the description doesn't guide the agent toward or away from them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.