typst_rename_fileRename or move files within a Typst project by specifying project-relative paths, then update #include/#import references to keep documents compiling.
Rename or move files inside a project. Moving to a new folder is just a new path. Remember to update #include/#import paths that point to them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| renames | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Project ID from typst_list_projects, e.g. 'pAbC123dEf456gHi789jKl' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds the useful behavioral caveat that include/import references break after a move, but doesn't cover overwrite behavior, error conditions, or batch failure semantics. With annotations present, credit 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key caveat. No filler.
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 2-param mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: whether renames is atomic, what happens if the destination exists, and how file-ID 'from' values behave are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 50%; the description clarifies that a 'move' is expressed simply as a new 'to' path, which is the key semantic insight beyond the schema's field descriptions. It doesn't explain the 'from' accepting a file ID or batch-array behavior, but adds real value.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Rename or move files inside a project') and the scope. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like typst_write_file or typst_edit_file.
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?
Says moving is accomplished via a new path, which clarifies the move-vs-rename dichotomy, and warns to update #include/#import paths. However it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance or prerequisites (e.g., must the destination not exist?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.