Standup MCP Server

rename_column

Update a kanban column's display name by specifying its board, column, and new name.

Instructions

Rename a column

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>",
      "columnId": "<columnId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_column"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The new column name
`boardId`	Yes	The board identifier
`columnId`	Yes	The column identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.6.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions required, whether the rename affects existing card references, or reversibility. The word 'Rename' implies a mutation, but that is the only behavioral signal present.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two words are certainly front-loaded and waste-free, but this is under-specification rather than tight writing; there is no structure to speak of and nothing beyond the name is communicated.

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?

For a three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is not complete enough – an agent gets no guidance on side effects, validation, or what a successful rename returns.

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% – boardId, columnId, and name are all documented in the schema with clear one-line meanings. The description adds no parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Rename a column'), so an agent immediately knows it mutates an existing column's name. However, it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as reorder_column, delete_column, or update_column_agents, which matters in a 20-tool toolset.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no scope constraints. An agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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