Skip to main content
Glama
getsimba-ai

Simba MCP Server

Official
by getsimba-ai

Rename Model

rename_model
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a model's display name while preserving its saved or unsaved state. Provide a new non-empty name, which is HTML-sanitized.

Instructions

Rename a model.

Changes only the display name; the model's saved/unsaved state is untouched (use save_model to file it into a project). The name is HTML-sanitized server-side and must be non-empty.

Args: model_hash: Hash of the model to rename. name: New display name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
model_hashYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "title": "rename_modelDictOutput",
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

It adds meaningful non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: only the display name changes, saved/unsaved state is untouched, and the name is HTML-sanitized and non-empty. This does not contradict the destructiveHint because overwriting the display name is still a mutating update.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, side-effect boundary, input handling rule, then parameter semantics. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, parameter meaning, side-effect scope, and validation. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of what happens when the model hash does not exist or how the new name appears in references.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block compensates by clarifying that model_hash identifies the model to rename and name is the new display name. It also carries the non-empty constraint from the description, though it does not describe hash format or sources.

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 first line 'Rename a model' states the exact verb and resource, and the next line 'Changes only the display name' sharply scopes the operation against siblings like save_model, delete_model, and rename_project. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly warns not to expect saved/unsaved state changes and directs the agent to save_model for filing a model into a project. It does not enumerate every alternative, but for a narrow rename operation the when-to-use context is clear.

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