rename_sessionUpdate a session's identifier to a new structured category:name:subcategory name, keeping your thinking workspace organized.
Rename an existing session to a new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newSessionName | Yes | New session name (format: category:name:subcategory) | |
| oldSessionName | Yes | Current session name (format: category:name:subcategory) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation but omits whether the session must already exist, whether the old name becomes invalid, side effects on history/links, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; exactly appropriate for this simple tool.
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 too thin. It should mention preconditions, side effects, and whether the old name is released, none of which are covered elsewhere.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the category:name:subcategory format. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (rename) and resource (session), so the core action is clear. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like delete_session or view_session, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance or prerequisites are given. It doesn't say whether the session must exist, whether renaming affects references, or when to prefer this over delete/recreate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.