yuque-ai-mcp

yuque_rename_book_stack

Renames a knowledge base group (book stack) in Yuque by updating its name for the given stack ID.

Instructions

重命名知识库分组（书架）。需要 cookie+ctoken 认证。PUT /api/book_stacks/{stack_id}，body {name, type:'user_books'}。

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": {
      "stack_id": "<stack_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "yuque_rename_book_stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	新名称（必填）
`stack_id`	Yes	分组 ID（书架 ID，必填）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv4.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the auth requirement (cookie+ctoken), the HTTP method (PUT), the endpoint path, and the fixed body field type:'user_books' that is absent from the schema. It still says nothing about permissions/ownership checks, what happens on a duplicate or invalid name, or what the response contains — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then transport details. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth, endpoint, and body — enough to construct a correct call. The missing piece is behavioral outcome (error cases, return shape), which keeps it short of full completeness.

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 already 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by revealing the request body shape, notably the constant type:'user_books' value that the agent must send but cannot learn from the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — renaming a knowledge-base group (book stack) — which separates it from create/delete/sort siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the equally plausible sibling yuque_update_book_stack, leaving the agent to guess which mutation tool to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the word 'rename' plus the required name parameter make the intent inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over yuque_update_book_stack, nor any precondition or exclusion beyond the auth note.

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

Deploy Server