Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stashcat-api-mcp

stashcat-api-mcp

by dclausen01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

rename_file

Change a file's name in Stashcat by specifying the file ID and the new filename including its extension.

Instructions

Renames a file.

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesID of the file to rename
new_nameYesNew filename (including extension)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the file does not exist, leaving safety and side-effect information entirely absent.

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 a single, clear sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention expected errors, permission requirements, or any side effects, making it difficult for an agent to anticipate the tool's full behavior despite simple parameters.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (file_id and new_name), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so no upgrade is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Renames') with a clear resource ('a file'), making the action unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling file operations like move_file or copy_file, so the tool's purpose is immediately clear.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use rename_file versus alternatives such as move_file or copy_file, nor does it mention any prerequisites, restrictions, or context where this tool is the preferred choice.

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