Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

rename_feature

Destructive

Renames the display name of a mechanical feature across all saved versions while keeping content, history, and the stable feature ID unchanged.

Instructions

Rename a mechanical feature — update the display name across every saved version without touching content or history.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "feature_id": "<feature_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYesNew display name. Whitespace-only names are rejected as ``FEATURE_VALIDATION``.
feature_idYesThe stable feature id (unchanged by rename — only the display name is updated).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / feature_id / description
      Added value: +"The stable feature id (unchanged by rename — only the display name is updated)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / new_name / description
      Added value: +"New display name.  Whitespace-only names are rejected as ``FEATURE_VALIDATION``."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the mutation is limited to the display name and explicitly leaves content and history untouched, and it propagates to every saved version. It also discloses a tier gate (Kiln Pro) that appears nowhere in the structured fields. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if the name collides.

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 short sentences, with the core action and its scope front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing is repeated and every clause 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, no output schema and a safety profile already carried by annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The missing piece is error behavior (e.g., name conflicts or what 'every saved version' means for archived releases), which an agent would want to know before calling.

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% and both parameters are documented in detail, including the stable-id/display-name split and the whitespace-only rejection rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (rename a mechanical feature) plus the scope of the change: display name updated across every saved version. The 'mechanical feature' framing implicitly separates it from rename_design, rename_feature_branch and rename_printer, but it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' gives a prerequisite, which is useful usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus branch-level renames (rename_feature_branch) or design-level renames, so the agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.

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