hive

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

agent_rename

Destructive

Changes a worker's display name while keeping its actor_id, so past pad writes, todos, and leases stay attributable. Rename between assignments; lead targets are refused.

Instructions

Change a worker's display name. Its actor_id (agent:N) does not change, so every pad write, todo comment and lease it has already made stays attributable. A live claude worker is also told to retitle its own session, which shows up in its pane; that arrives as a user turn, so rename between assignments rather than mid-task. Refuses a lead target outright.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	The worker's name, e.g. "impl" or "DEVX-123". Prefer passing this rather than agent_id, but pass only one: if both arrive, agent_id wins and this is ignored. A partial name works when it matches exactly one running worker, so "123" finds DEVX-123.
`agent_id`	No	Numeric agent id. Use name instead unless you have the id to hand.
`new_name`	Yes	The new display name. No other running worker may have it, case aside.
`project_id`	No	Different project override. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for another project by name; otherwise stay in the current scope, even when results are empty.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`note`	No
`tail`	No
`actor_id`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`retitled`	Yes
`hive_notice`	No
`previous_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2Sep 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / hive_notice
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv1.0.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: attribution of existing pad writes/todos/leases is preserved, a live claude worker receives an out-of-band retitle delivered as a user turn visible in its pane, and lead targets are rejected. These are consequences an agent could not infer from destructiveHint/readOnlyHint alone.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then packs the identity invariant, worker-side effect, timing advice and refusal rule into three dense sentences with no filler. Slightly long, but every clause carries operational information.

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?

With a full input schema and an output schema present, return values need no explanation; the description instead covers the risky edges (lead refusal, mid-task timing, session retitle side effect). Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents name-vs-agent_id precedence, partial-name matching, uniqueness of new_name, and the project_id scope override. The description adds the actor_id format note but no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination (change a worker's display name) and immediately clarifies the identity invariant (actor_id unchanged). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like agent_spawn or agent_park without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete timing guidance ("rename between assignments rather than mid-task") and an explicit refusal condition ("Refuses a lead target outright"). It does not name an alternative sibling for renaming-adjacent needs, so it falls just short of a 5.

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