Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Rename a file

rename_asset
Idempotent

Rename an asset file in Wiki.js. Be aware that pages embedding the old URL will break, as Wiki.js does not rewrite them.

Instructions

Renames an asset. Pages embedding it by its old URL will break — Wiki.js does not rewrite them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asset_idYesAsset id from list_assets.
filenameYesNew file name, including extension.
confirm_tokenNoToken from this tool’s previous, unconfirmed call. Omit it to receive one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset_id / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral consequence beyond the annotations: pages embedding the asset by its old URL will break, and Wiki.js does not rewrite them. This is exactly the kind of side-effect context an agent needs. The destructiveHint=false annotation is not directly contradicted because the tool renames rather than destroys data; the breakage is an indirect consequence the description responsibly surfaces.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core action, and the second delivers the essential warning. The most important operational caveat is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete: purpose, side effects, and the reason for the side effect are all covered. The output schema exists, and the input schema fully documents the confirmation-token mechanism, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented in the input schema, including the confirm_token flow. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb-plus-resource statement 'Renames an asset,' which clearly identifies the operation and object. It is distinct from sibling tools like upload_asset and delete_asset, and the title 'Rename a file' is reinforced rather than merely restated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling offers a rename operation, so this is acceptable. The warning that embedded pages will break provides an implicit when-not-to-use signal: avoid renaming if preserving old URLs matters. This is clear contextual guidance even without explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools