Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Inochi Creator MCP

Inochi Creator MCP

by ozekimasaki
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

creator_rename_node

Rename a node in Inochi Creator by providing its UUID and the new name.

Instructions

Rename a node.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "creator_rename_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew node name
uuidYesNode UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'rename a node' without mentioning side effects, persistence, potential errors, or any impact on references to the node. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the operation's implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only three words, making it extremely concise and free of fluff. It contains one clear, purpose-defining sentence, but it is possibly too minimal, sacrificing necessary context for a fully helpful definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, the tool definition is incomplete. The schema covers parameters, but the description omits crucial behavioral details such as whether renaming is reversible, what happens to node references, and what errors might occur. Given the many sibling node operations, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's role.

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 both parameters (uuid and name) are already well-documented in the input schema. The description 'Rename a node' adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely implies that uuid selects the node and name is the new name, which is already stated.

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 'Rename a node' clearly identifies the specific action (rename) and the resource (node) in a way that distinguishes it from all sibling operations like create, duplicate, delete, and reparent. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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