zyta-sign-mcp

Renombrar área

kairo_update_studio_area

Updates the name of an existing area in a studio. Requires management and write permissions.

Instructions

Cambia el nombre de un área. Requiere gestión y scope 'write'.

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": {
      "studioId": "<studioId>",
      "areaId": "<areaId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "kairo_update_studio_area"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`studioId`	Yes
`areaId`	Yes
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states a security requirement (scope 'write') but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if the areaId does not exist, whether the name change is reversible, or any side effects on related entities.

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 a single sentence plus a requirement statement. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part provides value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not address common concerns like error conditions (missing area), idempotency, or confirmation of success. The requirement statement is useful but incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's type and constraints. For example, it does not clarify that 'name' must be unique or provide format details. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 title 'Renombrar área' and description 'Cambia el nombre de un área' clearly state the tool's purpose as renaming an area. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kairo_create_studio_area or kairo_delete_studio_area.

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 description mentions prerequisite: 'Requiere gestión y scope 'write''. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like kairo_update_studio or kairo_update_studio_member. No explicit when-not or exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server