rename_columnChange the name of a Favro board column by providing the column and new name, optionally specifying the board for lookup.
Rename a column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New column name | |
| board | No | Board ID or name (required for name lookup) | |
| column | Yes | Column ID or name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2v0.7.0v0.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / board / descriptionAdded value: +"Board ID or name (required for name lookup)"Input schema / properties / column / descriptionAdded value: +"Column ID or name"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"New column name"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the rename is reversible, whether the board parameter is required for lookup, what happens to existing references, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool this is a complete gap.
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?
The single sentence is not verbose, but it is not appropriately sized for the task either: it is under-specified rather than concise, providing no front-loaded scope or constraint information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description should still cover behavioral basics like permissions, reversibility, and identifier expectations. Virtually none of that is present.
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% and all three parameters (name, board, column) are documented in the schema, including the note that board is required for name lookup. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 "Rename a column" restates the tool name and title verbatim with no additional specificity. It does identify a verb and resource, but adds nothing an agent could not infer from `rename_column` itself, and it makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings like move_column or delete_column.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_column, delete_column, or create_column, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.