NetMap — Network Diagram MCP

by den-indance

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

map_rename_sheet

Rename a sheet in your network diagram to keep it organized: provide the sheet ID and a new name to update it.

Instructions

Rename a sheet.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "map_rename_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Sheet id
`name`	Yes	New name (max 50 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Rename a sheet' and does not mention side effects, edge cases (e.g., duplicate names), or whether existing references are preserved.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents both parameters. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description does not convey behavioral details such as error handling or effects on related data, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 'id' and 'name' already described as 'Sheet id' and 'New name (max 50 chars).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 sheet.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from create/delete/list sheet operations by the verb 'rename.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate among sibling tools beyond the action itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_create_sheet or map_delete_sheet. The description simply states the operation without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.