apidog-mcp

apidog_rename_api_detail_folder

Rename an API detail folder in Apidog by providing its ID and a new name. Updates the folder's display name in your API documentation structure.

Instructions

Rename an API detail folder.

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": {
      "folderId": "<folderId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "apidog_rename_api_detail_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`branchId`	No	Optional Apidog branch ID. Falls back to apidog.json.
`folderId`	Yes
`projectId`	No	Apidog project ID. Falls back to apidog.json.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('rename') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, return values, or impact on child resources. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the verb itself.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, given the tool has four parameters and no other context, a bit more structure (e.g., listing key parameters) would improve usefulness without bloating.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the action, failing to explain return behavior, parameter semantics, or use cases. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly without guessing.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no information about parameters. Schema coverage is only 50% (branchId and projectId have descriptions), and critical required params name and folderId are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('API detail folder'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes the target resource from siblings like 'rename_module' or 'delete_api_detail_folder', though it does not explicitly call out 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites (e.g., needing folderId, projectId) mentioned. The only implication is that the tool is for renaming, but without clear context 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