Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tmux-mcp

tmux-mcp

by fr1sk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

rename_window

Rename a specific tmux window within a session. Provide the target in 'session:window' format and the new name.

Instructions

Rename a window in a tmux session. Target format: 'session:window'.

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesWindow target: 'session:window'
new_nameYesNew window name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, or immediate effects of renaming.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary details, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and target format.

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 rename tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the target format and operation, leaving no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value (target format) beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the action (rename) and resource (window in a tmux session). The target format is specified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rename_session.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives; the target format is hinted but not contextualized against other renaming tools. The description implies its use but lacks when-not or alternative mentions.

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