testit-mcp-server

rename_section

Idempotent

Rename a test section by its UUID to update its title in TestIT. Use it to correct or clarify section names while keeping project structure organized.

Instructions

Rename a section.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Section UUID.
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as what happens to the section's contents, whether the rename is visible across projects, or what errors occur for unknown IDs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with zero padding, so nothing is wasted. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density; the single sentence carries minimal content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify the rename semantics and error cases. It leaves the agent without the information needed to call the tool confidently beyond guessing from the parameter names.

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 coverage is only 50%: id is documented as a section UUID, but the name parameter has no schema description. The description does not compensate by explaining name constraints like length, uniqueness, or allowed characters, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Rename a section" states a specific verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as move_section or create_section, and gives no sense of scope beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or the alternative of creating a new section, and no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server