rename_objectRename any Maya node to a new name by specifying the target node and desired label. Works across connected sessions; use it to fix naming conventions or resolve duplicate node names.
Rename a node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | Node to rename. | |
| new_name | Yes | New name. | |
| session_key | No | Target Maya session; omit if only one is connected. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutation, whether renaming affects references or expressions, what permissions are needed, or how failures are reported. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary structure and context for a mutation tool, bordering on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.
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?
While an output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the description fails to address when to use this tool, the behavioral implications of renaming, or the optional session_key parameter's effect. With no annotations, the description leaves important operational context missing.
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 defines the node, new_name, and session_key parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when structured fields do 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?
States a specific verb 'Rename' and resource 'node', so the core action is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools such as parent_object, duplicate_object, or delete_objects, which also manipulate scene nodes.
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 rename_object versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether the node must exist or be selected first. The description simply states the action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.