GravityPort

stack_rename

Sets or updates a stack's display name, trimmed to 1–80 characters, and keeps that name even when the stack was created automatically from a conversation.

Instructions

Set a stack's display name (trimmed, 1 to 80 characters). The name is kept even when the stack was created automatically from a conversation.

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": {
      "stackId": "<stackId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "stack_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`stackId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.11Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation. The description adds real context beyond that: the value is trimmed and persists even for stacks auto-created from a conversation, which hints at naming precedence. It still omits error behavior for unknown stackId, whether an existing custom name is overwritten, and what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action first and the edge-case persistence note second. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the core is covered. However, the missing behavior on invalid stackId and the silent 'stackId' parameter leave modest gaps an agent would want before calling.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It adds meaningful semantics for 'name' (trimmed, 1-80 characters) beyond the minLength/maxLength constraints, but says nothing about 'stackId', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource ('Set a stack's display name'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like stack_create, stack_dissolve, or stack_get without needing to name them. It falls short of a 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with a create/rename alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as stack_create for new stacks. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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