Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mainframe MCP Server

Mainframe MCP Server

by rohittrimale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

rename_dataset

Destructive

Rename a mainframe dataset. The change is permanent and requires confirmation=true to proceed.

Instructions

Rename a mainframe dataset. IRREVERSIBLE. Requires confirm=true.

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": {
      "old_name": "<old_name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_dataset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo
new_nameYes
old_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'Requires confirm=true', which warns the agent about the permanent nature and necessary flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two short fragments containing only essential information. It is front-loaded with the action and key warnings, with no superfluous words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple rename tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the core action and key constraint (confirm=true), but lacks parameter semantics and usage context. Given the rich set of sibling tools, more context would help the agent decide between rename and other operations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only addresses the confirm parameter ('Requires confirm=true'), but provides no information about old_name or new_name (e.g., format, length, naming conventions). This leaves the agent without guidance for the other two parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Rename' and the resource 'mainframe dataset', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create, delete, copy. It also adds critical nuance about irreversibility and confirmation requirement.

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 mentions 'Requires confirm=true', giving a crucial condition for usage, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_member, modify_module) or when not to use it.

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