Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-lsp

agent-lsp

by blackwell-systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

prepare_rename

Validate rename feasibility at a code position to avoid failed rename attempts. Returns the targeted range and a placeholder name when supported, or indicates if renaming is not possible.

Instructions

Validate that a rename is possible at the given position before committing to rename_symbol. Returns the range that would be renamed and a placeholder name suggestion, or a message indicating rename is not supported at this position. Use this before rename_symbol to avoid attempting invalid renames. Returns null if the server does not support prepareRename.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "column": "<column>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineYes
columnYes
file_pathYes
language_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0
  2. Removedv0.15.0
  3. Addedv0.11.1
  4. Removedv0.10.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses return values and edge case (null if server doesn't support prepareRename). No annotations, so description carries full burden; no missing behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no fluff, efficient. Could be slightly more concise, but remains readable and front-loaded.

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?

Covers core purpose and return info for a simple validation tool. Missing parameter details (language_id, coordinate system) but overall adequate given no output schema.

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 coverage 0% (no param descriptions in JSON schema). Description does not explain any parameter individually (e.g., format of line/column, purpose of language_id).

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?

Clearly states the tool validates rename feasibility before rename_symbol, distinguishing it from the sibling rename_symbol. Describes return values: range, placeholder, or message.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before rename_symbol to avoid attempting invalid renames.' Context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools