Skip to main content
Glama

Morpha

by ai.morphareels

duplicate_project

Duplicate an existing project into a brand-new one — a full copy of its layers, animations, styles, uploaded assets, and clips. Pass the SOURCE project's projectId; the copy gets a fresh id automatically (ids are opaque — never shown to the user). Defaults the copy's name to " copy" unless you pass name. WORKSPACE: the copy FOLLOWS THE SOURCE by default — a project in a workspace is copied into that SAME workspace, and a personal project stays personal. Pass workspaceId to override: a workspace id (from list_workspaces) to place the copy in a specific workspace (you need an edit-capable role there), or null to force the copy into your personal space. If the source lives in a workspace you can only VIEW, the call FAILS rather than silently making a personal copy — get an editor role there, or pass workspaceId:null. (Duplicating a project shared with you from a workspace you're NOT a member of lands in personal, since you can't be placed in that workspace.) The returned workspaceId tells you where it went. The user's editor won't auto-refresh — they reload to see the copy in the picker.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional name for the copy. Shown verbatim in the picker; defaults to "<source name> copy".
projectIdYesId of the existing project to duplicate (the source).
workspaceIdNoOptional override for where the copy lives. Omit to FOLLOW THE SOURCE (a workspace project stays in its workspace; a personal one stays personal). A workspace id (from list_workspaces) places the copy there — you need an edit-capable role. null forces the copy into your personal space.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses naming defaults, id opacity, workspace-following behavior, role requirements, explicit failure behavior for view-only sources, behavior for shared projects, the returned workspaceId, and the editor refresh caveat.

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 long but every section earns its place given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the core action and copy scope, uses a clear WORKSPACE marker for the nuanced behavior, and includes no filler or repetition.

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 duplication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation, naming, workspace placement, role requirements, failure cases, and the returned workspaceId. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and anticipate side effects.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: the default workspace behavior, what happens when workspaceId is null, the list_workspaces reference, role requirements, and the failure mode. This substantially aids correct parameter selection.

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 states the exact operation ('Duplicate an existing project into a brand-new one') and specifies what is copied: layers, animations, styles, uploaded assets, and clips. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_project (creates new) and duplicate_layer (copies a layer).

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 clear context on when to use the tool, including what projectId to pass, default behavior, workspace overrides, and failure conditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use duplicate_project, but the contextual guidance is strong.

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

All Morpha toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.

Tool Count2/5

95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.

Resources