vimeo-mcp

Rename a folder

update_folder

Idempotent

Rename a Vimeo folder by providing its folder ID and a new name. Use this to organize video libraries; requires edit scope.

Instructions

Rename a folder. Needs the edit scope.

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": {
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New name.
`folder_id`	Yes	Folder id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0Oct 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.1Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and title 'Rename a folder', so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the edit-scope auth requirement, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about failure behavior, uniqueness of names, or what happens to existing folder contents beyond the rename.

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 short sentences, the action first and the precondition second, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent rename with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the auth prerequisite. Minor gaps remain around name constraints and error semantics, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the descriptions ('New name.', 'Folder id.') are self-explanatory, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Rename a folder'), and usefully narrows the scope of an ambiguously-named 'update_folder' to renaming only. It does not name or distinguish itself from the other folder siblings (create/delete/list/add_videos), but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: the caller needs the edit scope. That is clear usage context for an auth-gated mutation. It does not, however, state any when-not or point to an alternative for other folder modifications.

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