lendlord-mcp

Rename document

rename_document

Change a Lendlord document's display name using its ID and new name; writes require session confirmation.

Instructions

Change a document's display name.

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Set true once the user has approved writes for this session
`documentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not disclose the confirm-based write approval requirement, reversibility, or whether existing names are overwritten. For a mutation tool it is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded clause with zero waste, but at six words it reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness given the tool's mutation semantics.

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?

A write tool with no output schema and a confirm-gated flow needs more than one clause. Nothing tells the agent that writes require session approval, what happens on failure, or what the call returns, so an agent cannot call it confidently without inferring from the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: `confirm` is documented but `documentId` and `name` are bare strings. The phrase 'display name' does add a little meaning to `name` (contrasting with a filename), but there is no format hint for `documentId` and no elaboration on confirm beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (change/rename) and resource (a document's display name), which cleanly separates it from siblings like upload_document, delete_document, link_document and send_document. It is clear what the tool does, though it makes no explicit sibling comparison.

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 on when to use this versus other document-mutating siblings, and no mention of prerequisites. Critically, nothing in the description hints that a write-approval flow (the `confirm` flag) gates this operation.

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