notebook_renameRenames a notebook to a new title. Provide the notebook UUID and new title to update its name.
Rename a notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_title | Yes | New title | |
| notebook_id | Yes | Notebook UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / new_title / descriptionAdded value: +"New title"Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Notebook UUID"v0.9.1v0.8.9v0.7.7Input schema / properties / new_title / descriptionRemoved value: -"New title"Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Notebook UUID"v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Rename a notebook' implies a mutating title change, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation overwrites the existing title, permission requirements, or any conflict behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It communicates the essential operation in one short sentence, though it misses opportunities to add useful context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a two-parameter rename operation with an output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it omits behavioral guidance such as side effects, required permissions, and how this tool relates to notebook_create or notebook_delete, leaving gaps for an agent relying solely on this description.
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 the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already present in the input schema, resulting in the baseline score.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Rename' and identifies the resource 'notebook', clearly stating the core operation. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools, but the rename operation is distinct from notebook_create, notebook_delete, and notebook_describe.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the notebook must already exist), or how it differs from notebook_create or notebook_edit-style operations. The intended usage is only implied by the operation name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.