TypeWriter MCP

rename_page

Update a page's name in a TypeWriter storyline by entering the page to rename and the new name.

Instructions

Rename a page.

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": {
      "page": "<page>",
      "newName": "<newName>"
    },
    "name": "rename_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`newName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (rename), but omits any effects such as whether the old name becomes obsolete, whether links break, whether permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, as it omits crucial behavioral and parameter information, so it is concise but not optimally informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple with only two parameters, but the description is too minimal. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return values, side effects, or parameter semantics. For a mutation tool, this is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters 'page' and 'newName'. It does not clarify what format 'page' should take (ID, path, title) or any constraints on 'newName'. With no schema descriptions and no explanation in the tool description, parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 'Rename a page' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like create_page, read_page, and delete_page. It directly communicates the action and target.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_entry or replace_entry. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server