hive

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

agent_rename

Change a worker's display name while preserving their ID and all past activity, and update their live session title.

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
`previous_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description fully discloses the operation's consequences: actor_id persistence and attribution retention, the live-worker retitle side effect that appears as a user turn, and the refusal of lead targets. This exceeds typical descriptions and leaves little hidden behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core action and then deliver high-value specifics (identity, side effect, timing, refusal) without redundancy. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the action, when to use it, behavioral consequences, and parameter nuances. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a complete and self-contained definition.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful clarifications beyond the schema: the preferred use of `name` over `agent_id`, precedence rules when both are given, partial-name matching behavior, and the 'override only when explicitly asked' rule for `project_id`. These nuances help an agent choose parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Change a worker's display name.' It clarifies that the actor_id remains unchanged, which distinguishes it from any sibling that might imply identity replacement. This precision is more than adequate for an agent to select it.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance — 'rename between assignments rather than mid-task' — and discloses a refusal case ('Refuses a lead target outright'). It does not name alternative tools, but the uniqueness of the operation makes that unnecessary; the caution about mid-task use is valuable context.

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