Rename a column in Favro by providing the column ID or name and the new name. Optionally specify a board to resolve name conflicts.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Rename a column' without mentioning that this is a mutating operation, any required permissions, what happens to dependent data, or whether changes are reversible. This is a significant gap for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.
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 description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it does not add value beyond repeating the tool's name. It is concise in length but lacks substance. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place by providing any actionable information. A score of 3 reflects the brevity without penalizing for excessive text, but it is barely above the under-specification threshold.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no behavioral details, the description is inadequate. It does not explain when to use it, what effects it has, or any edge cases. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still fails to provide necessary context for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool. This is a significant completeness gap.
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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, but the schema already documents 'name', 'board', and 'column' adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter semantics.
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' clearly states the verb (rename) and resource (column). It is not a tautology because it combines the name with an action, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like move_column or delete_column. The purpose is unambiguous, but no effort is made to differentiate it from other column operations.
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 vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommendations. The agent is left to infer based on the name alone, which is insufficient when sibling tools like create_column, move_column, and delete_column exist with similar naming patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.