Graylog MCP Server

rename_log_template

Rename a log template by assigning a human-readable label. Provide the template ID and the new label to update it.

Instructions

Set or update a human-readable label for a template.

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": {
      "templateId": "<templateId>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "rename_log_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes	Human-readable label (e.g. 'AuthFailure')
`templateId`	Yes	Template ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates mutation ('Set or update') without revealing side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or permission requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description is adequate for the basic operation. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the template doesn't exist) and does not mention return values, which would make it more complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (templateId and label), covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Set or update') and the resource ('a human-readable label for a template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_log_template or list_log_templates. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'log template' or 'rename', which would align more directly with the tool name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing when it's appropriate to call.

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