Maya MCP

by science-animated

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

rename_object

Rename a Maya object by providing its current name and new name, updating the scene object label directly.

Instructions

Rename a Maya object.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`new_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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, and it only implies mutation via 'rename'. It says nothing about what happens on name collision (Maya's auto-suffix behavior or an error), whether the rename is reversible, whether it affects references/DAG paths, or whether it operates on the current selection or by name.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Five words with zero waste and a clear front-loaded verb, so it is not verbose. However, brevity here is achieved by omission rather than by efficiency, leaving no room for the disambiguation the tool needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage and two completely undocumented required parameters, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it confidently in a Maya scene with paths, namespaces, and references.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning: it never clarifies whether 'name' is a short node name, a full DAG path, a UUID, or a selection fallback, nor what characters or uniqueness constraints 'new_name' must satisfy. Both required parameters remain semantically undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('a Maya object'), which is unambiguous and no sibling (create_object, duplicate_object, set_attribute) performs renaming, so the tool is distinguishable in practice. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself, but the action is clear.

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?

No guidance about when to use this versus set_attribute or execute_maya_code, and no mention of preconditions such as the object needing to exist or being referenced/locked. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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