Skip to main content
Glama
fettlesh

fettle-mcp

by fettlesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

Rename a tag everywhere

rename_tag
Idempotent

Renames a tag across every monitor and heartbeat that carries it, so you can fix a naming scheme organization-wide without editing each item by hand.

Instructions

Rename a tag on every monitor and heartbeat that carries it; an item that already has the new name keeps one copy. Use it to fix a naming scheme across the organization; to change the tags of chosen monitors only use bulk_update_monitor_tags, and to drop a tag use delete_tag. Requires a key with the write scope. A tag nothing carries is not an error (both counts are 0). Returns from, to, monitors_updated and heartbeats_updated. Example: {"from": "prod", "to": "env:prod"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesThe new name. Each tag is trimmed, lowercased and deduplicated on write, at most 50 characters of a-z, 0-9 and : _ . / -, starting with a letter or digit. Reuse names from list_tags rather than inventing near-duplicates.
fromYesThe existing tag, as list_tags shows it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromYes
monitors_updatedYes
heartbeats_updatedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / from / description
      Added value: +"The existing tag, as list_tags shows it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / to / description
      Added value: +"The new name. Each tag is trimmed, lowercased and deduplicated on write, at most 50 characters of a-z, 0-9 and : _ . / -, starting with a letter or digit. Reuse names from list_tags rather than inventing near-duplicates."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "from": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "heartbeats_updated": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "monitors_updated": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "to": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "from",
+    "monitors_updated",
+    "heartbeats_updated"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.5.4

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: write-scope auth requirement, the merge behavior ('an item that already has the new name keeps one copy'), and the edge case that a tag nothing carries is not an error (counts are 0).

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?

Front-loads the core behavior, then routes to alternatives, then auth, edge cases, return fields and an example. Every clause carries distinct information with no padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a two-parameter mutation: scope, auth, idempotent merge behavior, no-op edge case, alternatives, and example are all present. An output schema exists, so the return-field mention is supplementary rather than required.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including normalization rules, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a concrete example mapping ('{"from": "prod", "to": "env:prod"}') and clarifies the merge semantics that govern the 'to' behavior, slightly exceeding the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (rename) plus resource (tag) and exact scope: 'on every monitor and heartbeat that carries it.' It also names the sibling tools it is not (bulk_update_monitor_tags, delete_tag), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use ('to fix a naming scheme across the organization') and when-not, with named alternatives: bulk_update_monitor_tags for selected monitors only and delete_tag to drop a tag. Nothing is left to inference.

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