Rename a MongoDB collection to a new name. Optionally specify the database and drop an existing collection that uses the new name.
Mengganti nama sebuah koleksi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newName | Yes | Nama baru untuk koleksi. | |
| database | No | Nama database tujuan. Opsional jika MONGODB_DB sudah diatur. | |
| collection | Yes | Nama koleksi. | |
| dropTarget | No | Hapus koleksi tujuan bila namanya sudah dipakai (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only indicates a rename operation, implying mutation, but says nothing about what happens if the new name already exists, how dropTarget behaves, whether indexes or data are preserved, or what failure modes exist.
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 short sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It earns a slightly above-average score because it is compact, though its brevity partly reflects the lack of substantive detail.
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?
For a mutating tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is incomplete. It omits operational context such as the effect of dropTarget, the optional database parameter's behavior, and what result or error the agent should expect.
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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline where the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mengganti nama' = rename) and a clear resource ('koleksi' = collection), making the operation intelligible. The rename verb is distinct enough from the create/drop/list sibling tools, though it does not elaborate on scope or side effects.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_collection, drop_collection, or update operations. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.