Rename an OBS scene by providing its current name or UUID and the new name. Use this to update scene labels in OBS Studio.
Sets the name of a scene (rename)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneName | No | Current name of the scene to be renamed | |
| sceneUuid | No | UUID of the scene to be renamed | |
| newSceneName | Yes | New name for the scene |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it says nothing about permission requirements, whether the rename affects scene collections or references, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the scene does not exist. Only the implicit fact that this is a mutation is conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single terse sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. Brevity here verges on under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Wait, recalibrating: the tool is genuinely simple, has only three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, so the description plus schema is close to sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is the unresolved name-vs-UUID identification choice, which is why it falls short of 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the scene identifier fields and newSceneName are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, notably not clarifying whether sceneName or sceneUuid is preferred when both are supplied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Sets the name of a scene (rename)" gives a specific verb and resource and the parenthetical disambiguates it from creating or removing scenes. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as obs-create-scene or obs-remove-scene, so the agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. It does not explain the relationship to obs-set-input-name or obs-set-source-filter-name, nor when to prefer this over obs-create-scene for name changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.