Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
appsmith-mcp

appsmith-mcp

by t0knight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

rename_widgets

Rename multiple Appsmith widgets in a single call. Provide widget IDs and new names, which must be valid identifiers.

Instructions

Rename multiple widgets in one tool call. Each entry is {"widget_id": <id>, "new_name": <str>}. New names must be valid Appsmith identifiers (alphanumeric, can't start with a digit, no spaces) — Appsmith may reject conflicts.

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": {
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "rename_widgets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
updatesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses naming constraints and potential conflict rejection, but does not detail atomicity or partial failure behavior. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers input format and naming rules. Lacks return value description but acceptable given low complexity and no output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (array items have only additionalProperties). The description specifies the expected key-value format, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool renames multiple widgets, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_widgets.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_widgets). Lacks explicit when/to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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