Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
onenote-mcp-python

onenote-mcp-python

by eddyficial
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

onenote_rename_section

Destructive

Rename an existing OneNote section by providing its section ID and a new name. Update section titles directly through this MCP server tool.

Instructions

Rename an existing section.

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": {
      "section_id": "<section_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "onenote_rename_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_nameYesNew section name. Required.
section_idYesSection object ID. Required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, indicating a mutating operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—no mention of side effects, permissions, or what happens to linked content. It merely repeats the rename action implied by the annotations.

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 wasted words. It captures the essential purpose while leaving parameter details to the schema, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter rename operation with complete schema descriptions and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the operation's simplicity reduces the need for extensive context.

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% for both parameters (section_id, new_name), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter details, but given the high coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Rename an existing section.' uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (section), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like onenote_rename_page and onenote_move_section. It directly states the tool's action without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly indicates use when renaming a section, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling tools make the context somewhat clear, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use info is given.

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