Simba MCP Server

Official

by getsimba-ai

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Rename Project

rename_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a project you own to update its display name. Owner-only action that keeps the default folder receiving unqualified saves under the new name.

Instructions

Rename a project you OWN.

Team members can file models into a shared folder but not rename it (owner-only; 404 for a project you don't own). Renaming your default folder is safe: it keeps receiving unqualified saves under its new name.

Args: project_id: Id of the project to rename (see list_projects). name: New display name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0Sep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "rename_projectDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.3.2Aug 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: owner-only enforcement with 404 for non-owned projects, and the reassuring detail that renaming the default folder preserves its role for unqualified saves. This meaningfully informs an agent's decision and expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core statement. Every sentence adds useful information: ownership requirement, error behavior, default-folder side effect, and parameter explanations. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-nested-object tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: who can call it, error semantics, side effects, and how to find the parameter value. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. project_id is explained as the ID of the project to rename with a pointer to list_projects, and name is described as the new display name. This is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool, though it doesn't add constraints like uniqueness or length.

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 opens with the specific action and resource: 'Rename a project you OWN.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from model-level operations by emphasizing ownership and the project scope, and it adds the critical condition that only owners can rename.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: only for projects you own, with a 404 if you don't. It references list_projects for obtaining the project_id. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like rename_model, but the ownership and shared-folder distinction makes the appropriate use case clear.

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

Deploy Server