Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

rename_design_branch

Destructive

Rename a design branch by assigning a unique new name; use it to update branch labels while avoiding duplicate non-retired names and retired branches.

Instructions

Rename a branch. New name must be unique per design (excluding retired branches).

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Branch · merge · cherry-pick · undo, on the designs you keep · Pro: Branch · merge · cherry-pick · undo, on every design · Business: ✓ · Enterprise: ✓.

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": {
      "branch_id": "<branch_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_design_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYesThe branch's new name. Must not be empty and must not match another non-retired branch of the same design (``BRANCH_EXISTS``).
branch_idYesId of the design branch to rename. A retired branch cannot be renamed (``BRANCH_RETIRED``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the design branch to rename.  A retired branch cannot be renamed (``BRANCH_RETIRED``)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / new_name / description
      Added value: +"The branch's new name.  Must not be empty and must not match another non-retired branch of the same design (``BRANCH_EXISTS``)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description restates the uniqueness and retired-branch constraints, but those are already spelled out in both schema parameter descriptions, so it adds essentially no behavioral context beyond structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence about "Free door, tiered answer" and Free/Pro/Business/Enterprise tiers is subscription marketing boilerplate that does not help an agent invoke this tool and dilutes the definition.

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?

This is a simple two-required-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, and no output schema is expected. The definition is close to sufficient, though it omits how the rename is scoped to a design and does not distinguish itself from the parallel rename_* branch tools.

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%, with both branch_id and new_name fully documented including the BRANCH_EXISTS and BRANCH_RETIRED error codes. The description's uniqueness sentence duplicates that, so the baseline 3 for schema-documented parameters applies.

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?

"Rename a branch" gives a specific verb and resource, so the core operation is unmistakable. However, an agent cannot tell from this text whether it applies to a design branch, feature branch, or decoration-preset branch, and the sibling list contains rename_feature_branch, rename_decoration_preset_branch, and rename_design — no differentiation is offered.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as rename_design or rename_feature_branch. The uniqueness/retirement rules are preconditions on the parameters, not guidance about selecting this tool.

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