Rename an existing cPanel API token by specifying its current name and the new name, so you can update token labels without recreating credentials.
Rename an existing API token
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Current token name | |
| new_name | Yes | New token name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action ('Rename an existing API token'). It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, or any permission requirements.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to clarity, with no unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete for understanding its core function. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutating effect, constraints), which slightly reduces completeness.
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% for both parameters ('name' and 'new_name'), so the schema already provides meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline of 3.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Rename') and the target resource ('API token'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_token, list_api_tokens, and revoke_api_token.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., token must exist) or explicitly contrast with other API token operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.