ipcam-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rename a camera

rename_camera

Rename an IP camera while preserving its baselines, snapshots, and recordings, so existing media stays linked to the updated camera name.

Instructions

Change a camera's name. Its baselines, snapshots and recordings stay with 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": {
      "old": "<old>",
      "new": "<new>"
    },
    "name": "rename_camera"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new`	Yes
`old`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context that associated baselines, snapshots, and recordings remain attached, but it does not cover collision behavior, missing-camera behavior, or other rename constraints.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no wasted wording. The second sentence adds a relevant preservation detail without bloating the definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter rename operation with an output schema, the description is adequate on purpose and side effects. However, it omits explicit parameter meaning and does not address failure or conflict scenarios, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented old and new parameters. It does not explicitly explain that old is the current camera name and new is the replacement name, leaving parameter meaning to inference from the short names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Change a camera's name." It also implicitly distinguishes renaming from add/remove/delete by noting that baselines, snapshots, and recordings stay with the camera.

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?

The tool's intended use is clear from the description, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as delete_camera, remove_camera, or add_camera. Usage is implied rather than directly routed.

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