docflow-mcp

Docflow Update Review Repo

docflow_update_review_repo

Rename a review rule repository in Docflow to keep compliance review workflows organized. Specify workspace, repository ID, and new name to update the rule repository.

Instructions

Rename a review rule repository (POST /review/rule_repo/update).

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "repo_id": "<repo_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "docflow_update_review_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`repo_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates that the operation renames a repository and gives the endpoint; it does not disclose side effects, uniqueness requirements, permissions, validation behavior, or whether the rename is reversible.

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 focused sentence with the endpoint in parentheses. There is no redundant wording, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage guidance, one sentence is insufficient. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the description still omits important context about when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only that 'name' is the new name implied by 'Rename'; workspace_id and repo_id semantics are left entirely to inference from their property names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('review rule repository'), and the endpoint gives a concrete reference. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_review_rule or update_review_rule_group, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_review_repos, get_review_repo, update_review_rule, or delete_review_repo. The description implies use when renaming, but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server