Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by TwelveTake-Studios
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rename_region

Idempotent

Renames a region by its index while preserving its bounds and color; use an empty name to clear it.

Instructions

Rename the region get_regions numbers region_index, keeping its bounds and color. An empty name clears it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "region_index": "<region_index>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_region"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
region_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: bounds and color are preserved, and an empty string clears the name rather than failing. It doesn't say what happens on an invalid region_index, but the mutation's side effects are otherwise well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action and its preserved state front-loaded and the edge case (empty name) immediately after. Nothing repeats the schema or the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, side effects, and the empty-name edge case adequately. The only gap is error behavior on an out-of-range index, a minor omission at this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: region_index is tied to the numbering used by get_regions, and name semantics (empty clears) are spelled out. It could still note whether name length or characters are constrained, but the core meanings are covered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (rename) and resource (region), and ties the region to the identifier returned by get_regions, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling mutations like rename_marker or add_region. It stops short of an explicit 'not for markers' exclusion, keeping it just under a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reference to get_regions tells the agent where the index comes from, and the empty-name behavior hints at a clear-name use case. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. delete_region, add_region) guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools