salome-mcp

by gnshb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

rename_object

Rename a GEOM study object in SALOME by providing its entry ID or existing name, then set the new name.

Instructions

Rename GEOM study object (entry ID or existing name).

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": {
      "object_ref": "<object_ref>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_name`	Yes
`object_ref`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a rename and clarifies the reference format, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or error behavior, which is a gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The parenthetical 'entry ID or existing name' adds precise context without padding.

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 rename tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and reference format. However, it lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools and behavioral caveats, so it is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It adds that object_ref can be an entry ID or existing name, but it provides no additional meaning for new_name or any constraints on either parameter, leaving the semantic burden largely unmet.

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 verb 'Rename' and the resource 'GEOM study object,' and specifies that the object reference can be an entry ID or existing name. This distinguishes it from related operations like copy or duplicate.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_object or duplicate_object. The verb implies its use, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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