wiseoldman-mcp

Submit name change

wom_submit_name_change

Request a username change by providing old and new names; the system asynchronously verifies the change against hiscore data.

Instructions

Submits a name change request from an old username to a new one. Returns the pending NameChange object; Wise Old Man will asynchronously verify it against the player's hiscore history.

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": {
      "oldName": "<oldName>",
      "newName": "<newName>"
    },
    "name": "wom_submit_name_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`newName`	Yes	The player's new username.
`oldName`	Yes	The player's previous username.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context (async verification, returns pending object) but lacks details on error conditions, authentication, or side effects.

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?

Two straightforward sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the return behavior and async verification.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the return value and async nature. With no output schema, this is sufficient. Some missing details like prerequisites but not critical for a simple submission tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('submits') and resource ('name change request'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like wom_search_name_changes. The scope is well-defined: from old username to new one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the action and result but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., wom_search_name_changes for checking status), nor does it provide 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