Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
voog-mcp

voog-mcp

by runnel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

layout_rename

Idempotent

Rename a Voog layout by specifying its ID and new title. The operation is reversible, and the new title cannot contain '/' or '\' or start with '.'.

Instructions

Rename a layout (PUT /layouts/{id} {title}). Reversible — rename back to the original title to undo. The new title must not contain '/' or '\' or start with '.'.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "layout_id": "<layout_id>",
      "new_title": "<new_title>"
    },
    "name": "layout_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesSite name from voog_list_sites
layout_idYesVoog layout id
new_titleYesNew layout title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive; description adds that renaming is reversible and details title constraints, which helps the agent understand behavior 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 simple rename tool with three well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context including reversibility and title constraints. No gaps identified.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema provides full coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds additional constraints on new_title (no '/' or '\' or starting with '.'), which enhances understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool renames a layout, provides the HTTP method and path, and specifies constraints on the new title. Distinguishes from sibling tools like layout_create, layout_update, and layout_delete.

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?

Explains the tool is for renaming layouts and is reversible. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like layout_update for other property changes.

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