Rename a query step and update every reference to it, ensuring consistency across the query.
Rename a step inside a query and every reference to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| new_name | Yes | ||
| old_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals that references are updated, but omits side effects (e.g., irreversibility, error handling for missing old_name, or whether dry_run is supported). The dry_run parameter is not mentioned.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope.
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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter meanings, return behavior, error handling, and any details about how references are updated. An agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.
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 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. While 'old_name' and 'new_name' are self-evident, 'source' and 'query' are ambiguous, and 'dry_run' is entirely undocumented.
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 states a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('a step inside a query') with a clear scope ('every reference to it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_query (renames whole query) and remove_step (deletes a step).
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 usage for renaming steps but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, conditions, or references to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.