Skip to main content
Glama
shaqmughal

seekstone

by shaqmughal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rename_heading

Destructive

Rename a heading and update all wikilinks and embeds across the vault, keeping references intact while preserving aliases and skipping fenced code blocks.

Instructions

Rename a heading in a note and rewrite every [[note#heading]] wikilink and embed across the vault so references keep working — aliases preserved, fenced code blocks left alone. Served from the warm backlink index, no vault scan. Heading matching is case-insensitive; with duplicate headings the first match wins, mirroring Obsidian link resolution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesVault-relative path of the note containing the heading.
prevHashNoOptional compare-and-swap guard: the contentHash from a prior read. Fails with hash_conflict if the note changed since.
newHeadingYesNew heading text, without # markers. Must not contain newlines, "[", "]", "|", or "#".
oldHeadingYesCurrent heading text, without # markers. Case-insensitive; first match wins.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.17

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite having annotations, it adds valuable context about case-insensitivity, first-match-wins on duplicates, and skipping code blocks. It doesn't contradict 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 dense sentences pack a lot of precise information: what it does, how it works (warm backlink index), and key edge-case behaviors. 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 rename operation, it covers the mutation, the link rewriting, the index source, and important resolution semantics. It could elaborate on return values, but the description is comprehensive for typical usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the exact behavior of heading matching and what happens with the prevHash guard.

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 it renames a heading and rewrites links and embeds across the vault, which distinguishes it from simple rename or edit tools. It mentions specific behavioral nuances like alias preservation and ignoring fenced code blocks.

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?

It implies this tool is for renaming headings specifically, not for other edits, and mentions how it handles duplicate headings. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context is clear for when to use this over a generic edit tool.

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