Skip to main content
Glama

Rename note section

rename_note_section
Destructive

Rename an outdated Markdown heading (H2-H6) without altering its level, content, or subheadings, using a content hash to prevent conflicts.

Instructions

Use this only to rename an outdated H2-H6 Markdown section title recognized by the current write selector, without changing its level, content, or subordinate headings. Pass the note's current content_hash as expected_hash for CAS. It refuses H1 because frontmatter title synchronization is outside this tool and refuses collisions recognized by the same AST selector. ATX and Setext headings are supported; fenced-code headings are ignored. For duplicate titles, pass 1-based heading_occurrence with heading_level and the exact expected_hash; the ordinal follows document order for those hashed bytes. Do not use chunk_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
headingYes
rel_pathYes
request_idNo
new_headingYes
expected_hashNo
heading_levelNo
heading_occurrenceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexedYes
renamedNo
rel_pathNo
replayedNo
committedNo
content_hashYes
operation_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv0.1.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Request Id"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / committed
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Committed"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / operation_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Operation Id"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / rel_path
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Rel Path"
      +}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / renamed / $ref
      Removed value: -"#/$defs/RenamedSectionOutput"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / renamed / anyOf
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "$ref": "#/$defs/RenamedSectionOutput"
      +  },
      +  {
      +    "type": "null"
      +  }
      +]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / renamed / default
      Added value: +null
    • addedOutput schema / properties / replayed
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Replayed"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "renamed",
      -  "content_hash",
      -  "indexed"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "content_hash",
      +  "indexed"
      +]
  2. Addedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial operational detail beyond that: CAS via expected_hash, refusal of H1 and collision headings, ATX/Setext support, fenced-code headings being ignored, and duplicate-ordering semantics. This gives an agent a realistic model of how the tool behaves at runtime.

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?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place: scope, constraints, CAS, format handling, and duplicate behavior are all covered without repetition. The most important usage restriction is front-loaded, and the warning 'Do not use chunk_id' is a valuable, concise final sentence.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity — 7 parameters, destructive write behavior, CAS, AST-dependent matching, and duplicate titles — the description is remarkably complete. It covers edge cases, format support, exclusions, and parameter semantics, and the presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is unnecessary.

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 compensate, and it does for the most important parameters: expected_hash is explained as CAS, and heading_level/heading_occurrence are explained for duplicate titles with document-order semantics. However, the required rel_path parameter is never mentioned, and request_id is also unaddressed, leaving minor but real gaps.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific operation (rename), a specific resource (H2-H6 Markdown section title recognized by the write selector), and explicit scope constraints (no level/content/subordinate changes, H1 refusal). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like patch_note_section, delete_note_section, and set_frontmatter.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It opens with 'Use this only to rename...', which establishes precise when-to-use guidance, and adds explicit exclusions: H1, collisions, fenced-code headings, and chunk_id usage. It does not name the alternative tool for H1 frontmatter changes, but the statement that frontmatter synchronization is 'outside this tool' makes the routing intent clear.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/VBlackJack/Datacron'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server