3DLogo.io

Rename a project

rename_project

Idempotent

Renames a saved project. Owner or editor. Nothing else about the project changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`title`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes	Opens the project in its studio
`kind`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`isPublic`	Yes
`modelUrl`	Yes	Public GLB, for published meshes
`shareUrl`	Yes	Public page, when published
`inputType`	Yes
`kindLabel`	Yes
`updatedAt`	Yes	ISO 8601
`thumbnailUrl`	Yes	Saved thumbnail; needs the owner's browser session

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedOutput schema / properties / inputType / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / inputType / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedOutput schema / properties / updatedAt / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedOutput schema / properties / updatedAt / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only false, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it names the required permission level (Owner or editor) and promises that no other project attributes are modified.

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 sentences, each adding information: the action, the permission gate, and the side-effect boundary. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a low-complexity rename operation with a detailed schema and output schema present, the description covers the action, authorization, and non-destructive scope. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must signal parameter roles. 'Renames a saved project' ties title to the new name and id to the existing project. This is minimal but sufficient for two self-descriptive parameters.

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?

Description states a specific action (Renames) on a concrete resource (a saved project), and explicitly scopes the operation with 'Nothing else about the project changes.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_project, duplicate_project, and update_project_style.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives a clear context for use—renaming an existing saved project and the permission requirement (Owner or editor). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope statement separates it from other update-style tools.

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

All 3DLogo.io tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources, but several overlapping pairs exist: search/list_projects both find projects by title, fetch/get_project both return project details, and upload_logo_image/request_logo_image_upload are two upload paths. The descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, get_, update_, delete_). Minor deviations like bare 'fetch' and 'search', plus the mixed '3d' in generate_3d_model vs '3D' in descriptions, keep it from being perfectly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 31 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where agent tool selection becomes cognitively heavy. While the server covers a broad platform, several tools are near-redundant and could be consolidated, making the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers project lifecycle, sharing/publishing, AI generation, uploads, materials, and account/plan management quite thoroughly. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct create_coin_project tool and no deletion for generation runs, but these are workable.

Resources

Need Help?