Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ragflow-kb-mcp

ragflow-kb-mcp

by feci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ragflow_rename_chat_session

Rename an existing RAGFlow chat session by chat assistant ID and session ID, updating its display name for clearer organization.

Instructions

Rename a chat session.

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": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ragflow_rename_chat_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew session name
chat_idYesChat assistant ID
session_idYesSession ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title — no word on whether the rename is idempotent, whether the name must be unique, whether ownership permissions are required, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely concise-value.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with a full schema and an output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It omits any behavioral or permission context an agent might need before invoking a write on a chat session.

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 chat_id, session_id and name all documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra semantics (e.g. name length limits or character rules), which is acceptable at this coverage level but unhelpful.

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 (rename) and resource (chat session), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate the tool from near-siblings like ragflow_update_chat or ragflow_create_chat_session in terms of when renaming is the right operation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this versus ragflow_update_chat or other session-mutating tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of any constraints. The agent must infer all usage context.

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