Rename a project you own (the display name only — the slug, which identifies the project in URLs and API paths, never changes). Requires an ACCOUNT-scoped token and the config scope. 404-equivalent error when you do not own the slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The new display name (1–100 chars). | |
| slug | Yes | The slug of a project you own. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral context: it clarifies that the slug never changes, only the display name, and specifies the auth requirements. This goes beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the operational impact.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key clarification about the slug, then the auth and error conditions. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the scope of change, the slug behavior, required credentials, and a potential error condition. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (name: display name, slug: project slug), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description reinforces the slug's immutability but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Rename a project you own') and the specific resource (project display name), while distinguishing it from other project operations by clarifying that only the display name changes, not the slug. This unambiguously separates it from create, archive, and other related tools.
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?
The description provides explicit preconditions: ownership of the project and the required token scope (`ACCOUNT`-scoped token with `config` scope). It also documents the error condition when the slug is not owned, which guides appropriate usage. It does not name alternatives, but there are no sibling rename tools, so this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
