SyncPen MCP Server

syncpen_rename_folder

Rename an existing SyncPen folder by specifying its ID and the new name. Update folder labels to organize your documents.

Instructions

Rename an existing SyncPen folder.

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": {
      "folderId": "<folderId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "syncpen_rename_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New name for the folder
`folderId`	Yes	The ID of the folder to rename

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.4Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'rename' without detailing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on conflict. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple rename operation with well-documented parameters, but lacks constraints like name uniqueness or length limits. No output schema is acceptable given simplicity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for strong schema coverage.

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 'Rename an existing SyncPen folder' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (existing SyncPen folder), distinguishing it from siblings like syncpen_create_folder or syncpen_move_folder.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., move folder) or mention prerequisites like folder existence or permissions.

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