@argosvix/mcp-server

rename_project

Modify a project's display name or URL-safe slug. Supply new name, slug, or both.

Instructions

Update an existing project's name / slug (PATCH /v1/projects/:id). Specify either or both. slug keeps the URL-safe constraint (/^[a-z][a-z0-9-]{0,31}$/). Renaming the default project is allowed.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "rename_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New display name (unchanged when omitted)
`slug`	No	New slug (unchanged when omitted, /^[a-z][a-z0-9-]{0,31}$/)
`projectId`	Yes	Target project id (the UUID obtained from list_projects)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it is a PATCH endpoint (partial update) and mentions the URL-safe constraint for slug. However, it does not describe permissions, side effects, conflict behavior, or return value, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Description is exceptionally concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the core action, then covers additional details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 rename tool, the description covers core functionality. However, with no output schema, it omits the return value and error conditions. It also does not address idempotency or concurrency, which are relevant for update tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying optionality ('Specify either or both') and the permissibility of renaming the default project, but these are minor enhancements beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Update an existing project's name / slug') and specifies the resource (project). It distinguishes from siblings like create_project and delete_project by focusing on renaming, and includes a specific note about default projects.

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?

Description provides clear guidance on parameter usage ('Specify either or both') and mentions a special case ('Renaming the default project is allowed'). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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

Deploy Server