Skip to main content
Glama

rename_feature_branch

Destructive

Rename a feature branch by branch ID and new name to keep design version history organized. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Rename a feature branch.

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": {
      "branch_id": "<branch_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_feature_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 feature (``FEATURE_BRANCH_EXISTS``).
branch_idYesId of the feature branch to rename. A retired branch cannot be renamed (``FEATURE_BRANCH_RETIRED``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive mutation with openWorldHint false. The description adds the useful 'Needs Kiln Pro' entitlement requirement, but it does not explain what renaming affects, whether references are updated, or how errors surface beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes no filler. The entitlement note is useful, though the overall definition is extremely terse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and plan requirement. However, it omits sibling-relative usage guidance and any behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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%, so both required parameters already have detailed constraints and error code context in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a feature branch.' The noun 'feature branch' distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_feature and rename_design_branch, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

The only guidance is 'Needs Kiln Pro,' which is a plan prerequisite, not usage direction. It does not say when to use this tool versus rename_feature, rename_design_branch, or other branch operations, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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