Skip to main content
Glama

folder_rename

Rename folders in Unity projects to organize assets and maintain project structure. Specify the current folder path and new name to update references automatically.

Instructions

Rename a folder in Unity project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
oldPathYesCurrent path of the folder
newNameYesNew name for the folder

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the 'folder_rename' tool including its name, description, and input schema in the getTools() method.
    {
      name: 'folder_rename',
      description: 'Rename a folder in Unity project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          oldPath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Current path of the folder'
          },
          newName: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'New name for the folder'
          }
        },
        required: ['oldPath', 'newName']
      }
    },
  • Handler for 'folder_rename' tool in executeTool method. Validates inputs and delegates to UnityHttpAdapter.renameFolder, then formats success response.
    case 'folder_rename': {
      if (!args.oldPath || !args.newName) {
        throw new Error('oldPath and newName are required');
      }
      const result = await this.adapter.renameFolder(args.oldPath, args.newName);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: `Folder renamed successfully:\nOld Path: ${result.oldPath}\nNew Path: ${result.newPath}\nGUID: ${result.guid}`
        }]
      };
    }
  • Core implementation of folder rename via HTTP POST to Unity MCP server endpoint 'folder/rename'.
    async renameFolder(oldPath: string, newName: string): Promise<{ oldPath: string; newPath: string; guid: string }> {
      return this.call('folder/rename', { oldPath, newName });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Rename') but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to references to the old folder name, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of file system operations in a Unity context, more context about constraints and outcomes is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (oldPath and newName) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Rename') and resource ('a folder in Unity project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like folder_move, which also involves folder path changes. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like folder_move or folder_create. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zabaglione/mcp-server-unity'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server