device_renameRename a device in LibreNMS by specifying its current hostname or ID and the desired new hostname. Correct or update device names to maintain accurate monitoring records.
Rename a device in LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Current device hostname or ID | |
| new_hostname | Yes | New hostname for the device |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already declare. With destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the safety profile is known, but the description does not explain any side effects of renaming (e.g., impact on references, monitoring, or historical data), so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, direct sentence that immediately communicates the operation. There is no redundant information or filler; the description earns its place and is easily parsed.
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 simple two-parameter rename operation, the description is minimally adequate, especially with annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior and an output schema present. However, it lacks any guidance on selection relative to device_update and does not mention potential side effects that would help an agent invoke it responsibly for a destructive operation.
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%: both hostname and new_hostname have clear descriptions ('Current device hostname or ID' and 'New hostname for the device'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('a device in LibreNMS'), making the tool's core function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling device_update, which could plausibly also change a device's hostname.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like device_update or device_add. The description only states the action without any context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or conditions that would make another tool preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.