nc-mcp-server

update_circle_name

Idempotent

Rename a circle by providing its ID and the new name. Requires admin or owner access.

Instructions

Rename a circle. Requires admin or owner level on the circle.

Args: circle_id: String circle id. name: New name.

Returns: JSON of the updated circle.

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": {
      "circle_id": "<circle_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_circle_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`circle_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation behavior is covered. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the permission requirement and stating that the return value is 'JSON of the updated circle,' going beyond what the annotations provide.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, the permission requirement, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every line earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-parameter rename operation, the description covers the action, permission condition, parameter semantics, and return value. An output schema exists for the updated circle, so the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'circle_id: String circle id' and 'name: New name.' The 'name' explanation clarifies that it is the replacement value, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type and title.

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 description opens with 'Rename a circle,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_circle_description and update_circle_config without requiring schema inspection.

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?

The description explicitly states a usage prerequisite: 'Requires admin or owner level on the circle.' This gives an agent a clear condition for when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the prerequisite is strong contextual guidance.

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

Deploy Server