set_title
Set the title of an RFC document by providing the document object and a new title string.
Instructions
Set the title of an RFC document
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | RFCDocument | |
| title | Yes | New title |
Set the title of an RFC document by providing the document object and a new title string.
Set the title of an RFC document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | RFCDocument | |
| title | Yes | New title |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or whether the change is persistent. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence, but overly brief given the need for more behavioral context. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, whether the document object is modified in place or saved, or any validation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% but description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions ('RFCDocument', 'New title'). No guidance on format, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it sets the title of an RFC document using a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'get_title'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling 'set_*' tools or other alternatives. No context about prerequisites or exclusivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daedalus/mcp-rfc-editor'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server