apidog-mcp

apidog_rename_module

Rename an existing module in an Apidog project by specifying its ID and new name, with optional branch and project IDs.

Instructions

Rename a module in an Apidog project.

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": {
      "moduleId": "<moduleId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "apidog_rename_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description only says 'Rename a module' and fails to mention any side effects, requirements (e.g., module must exist), or what happens to existing data. This is a bare statement with no transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified; while brief, it sacrifices useful detail that could be added without bloat, making it merely adequate.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more context. It does not mention the optional fallback behavior for branchId/projectId, any prerequisites, or what the tool returns. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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?

The input schema describes branchId and projectId, but the tool description does not explain the required parameters moduleId and name. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's partial coverage (50%), and it does not compensate for the undefined parameters.

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 ('a module in an Apidog project'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like update_module or create_module, so it misses the top score.

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. The description does not mention that this is specifically for renaming only, nor does it reference update_module for other module modifications. It provides no context about 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