rainkeeper

by simonives

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

rename_tag

Renames an existing tag to a new name, updating all bookmarks that use the old tag.

Instructions

Rename a tag across all bookmarks.

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_tag": "<old_tag>",
      "new_tag": "<new_tag>"
    },
    "name": "rename_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_tag`	Yes
`old_tag`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description mentions the scope 'across all bookmarks' but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as whether renaming merges with an existing new tag, or if the operation is reversible. Without annotations, this minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded, it is oversimplified for a rename operation affecting all bookmarks.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and simple string parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain behavior when new_tag already exists or whether the operation is atomic, leaving an agent uncertain about consequences.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions and the tool description provides no additional meaning for old_tag or new_tag (e.g., format, case sensitivity, existence requirements). The description only implies their roles, which is inadequate for proper parameter understanding.

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?

The description 'Rename a tag across all bookmarks' clearly states the action (rename) and resource (tag), and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_tags or bulk_tag_raindrops. However, it could be more explicit about the effect on all bookmarks having the old tag.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_tags and bulk_tag_raindrops). The agent receives no information about prerequisites or contraindications.

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