Nas.com

Duplicate Challenge Checkpoint

duplicate_challenge_checkpoint

Duplicate a challenge checkpoint to selected destinations. Before offering this action or requesting its inputs, check business permissions. FREE businesses cannot use this tool, regardless of individual feature rows. Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs. Show any grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link before continuing, and never proceed when access is blocked.

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": {
      "communityId": "<communityId>",
      "challengeId": "<challengeId>",
      "checkpointId": "<checkpointId>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_challenge_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`challengeId`	Yes	Challenge ID, from list_products or a challenge tool for this business.
`communityId`	Yes	Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one.
`destination`	No
`checkpointId`	Yes	Challenge checkpoint ID, from the challenge checkpoint list.
`duplicateToAll`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / challengeId / description

Added value: +"Challenge ID, from list_products or a challenge tool for this business."

addedInput schema / properties / checkpointId / description

Added value: +"Challenge checkpoint ID, from the challenge checkpoint list."

addedInput schema / properties / communityId / description

Added value: +"Nas.com business (community) ID. Use an ID returned by list_businesses or another Nas.com tool; never invent one."

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; they say nothing about entitlement gating. The description adds substantive behavior the annotations do not: business-plan restrictions, a grace-period warning plus resubscribe link that must be surfaced, and a hard stop on blocked access. It stops short of describing what a successful duplication produces or whether duplicates can collide with existing checkpoints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by procedural gating in imperative order (check access, show warning, never proceed). A couple of sentences restate the same blocked-access idea, but nothing is off-topic for a gated mutation tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the access-control behavior an agent most needs before invoking it, including the required pre-call to check_business_tool_access. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail for destination and duplicateToAll, which neither schema nor description resolves.

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 60%, so challengeId, communityId and checkpointId already have meaning from the schema. The description only echoes 'selected destinations' for the destination array and says nothing about duplicateToAll or how it interacts with destination (e.g., whether it is an override or mutually exclusive). That leaves the two weakest-documented parameters unexplained.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a challenge checkpoint') plus a scope hint ('to selected destinations'), which clearly separates it from siblings like update_challenge_checkpoint_dates or delete_challenge_checkpoint_event. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling duplicate_challenge, but the resource name is precise enough for an agent to select correctly.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition sequence: call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs, and never proceed when access is blocked. It states a hard exclusion (FREE businesses cannot use this tool regardless of feature rows). What it lacks is guidance on when to choose this duplication tool over related duplication flows, but the gating guidance is unusually clear.

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

All Nas.com tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.