Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

rename_design

Destructive

Rename a 3D design to change its ID and display name across all versions while keeping branches, outcomes, and parent-version chains intact.

Instructions

Rename a design — change its id and display name across every version while keeping branches, outcomes, and parent_version chains intact.

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": {
      "old_design_id": "<old_design_id>",
      "new_design_id": "<new_design_id>"
    },
    "name": "rename_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_design_idYesThe new design name / directory slug (in a Kiln account: the new name).
old_design_idYesThe current design name / directory slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / new_design_id / description
      Added value: +"The new design name / directory slug (in a Kiln account: the new name)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / old_design_id / description
      Added value: +"The current design name / directory slug."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing cascade behavior beyond that — the rename propagates across every version and explicitly preserves branches, outcomes, and parent_version chains. It does not say whether it is reversible or whether old-id references break, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the scope statement front-loaded after the verb and no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations. Every clause (id change, every version, preserved structures) carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers enough: what changes, how far it propagates, and what survives. The remaining gap is around reversibility and stale-reference behavior for the old id, which an agent about to invoke a destructive rename would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds a small clarification by pairing 'id' with 'display name', reinforcing that the slug doubles as the display name, but contributes no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Rename a design') and scopes it precisely: the change applies to the id and display name across every version. The 'across every version' clause implicitly separates it from the many sibling rename_* tools that operate on branches, features, or presets, though no sibling is named outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for changing a design's identity, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as rename_design_branch or save_design_version. No prerequisites or preconditions are stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools