Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Rename a tag

update_tag
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a tag and its display title across all pages that use it. Provide new name and title, then confirm with a token from a prior call to apply changes.

Instructions

Changes a tag’s name or display title across every page carrying it. Renaming affects all of them at once, which is the point and also the risk, so it needs a confirmation token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYesNew tag name.
titleYesNew display title.
tag_idYesTag id from list_tags.
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 / tag_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?

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the rename propagates across every page carrying the tag, and a confirmation token is required because of the risk. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure agents need.

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 filler. The core action and risk are stated immediately, and the confirmation-token requirement is explained in the second sentence without redundancy.

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?

Given the parameter count, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides the missing context: the cross-page impact and the confirmation-token behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to understand what this tool does and how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the tag, title, tag_id, and confirm_token parameters. The description reinforces the dual name/title update and the token flow, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Changes') and a specific resource ('a tag's name or display title across every page carrying it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_tag and list_tags by focusing on the rename operation and its global propagation.

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 clearly conveys that this is the tool to use for renaming a tag and highlights the all-pages effect and confirmation-token requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes when to use this tool evident.

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