Updates the title of an existing chat by chat ID, enabling you to correct or change how a conversation is labeled.
Rename a chat. Mirrors syntx.chats.rename. Issues PUT /api/v1/chats/{chat_id} with body {title}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | New chat title (required). | |
| chat_id | Yes | Chat UUID or numeric id (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the HTTP method and endpoint/body shape, making clear this is a mutation. However, it does not mention permissions, validation behavior, error cases, or what happens to the chat beyond the title change.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence contributes a concrete fact, and there is no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter rename operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly. It omits return behavior and permission requirements, but these are less critical for this straightforward mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the body shape `{title}` and path `{chat_id}` but adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Rename a chat.' It is clear what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from siblings like create-chat, delete-chat, and list-chats. It does not explicitly contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The operation is self-evident, but there is no explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.