duplicate_reportDuplicate a report with a new name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the duplicated report | |
| report_id | Yes | Source report ID (from list_reports) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The copy — its own new id, with every page and widget of the source cloned under it. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Source report ID (from list_reports)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / report_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Source report ID (from list_reports)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "report_id",
+ "name"
+]Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The copy — its own new id, with every page and widget of the source cloned under it.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: false, and destructiveHint: false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the report is duplicated with a new name, but does not explain whether the source report is affected, whether widgets/dashboards are copied, what permission is required, or what the returned object contains.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.
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?
This is a relatively simple tool with only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could be more complete by clarifying the scope of duplication (report vs. dashboard) and any side effects.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description adds only the context that 'name' is the new name for the duplicate, which is useful but minimal; it does not meaningfully enrich the parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 states a clear action ('Duplicate') and resource ('a report'), which distinguishes it from most sibling tools like archive_report or get_report. However, the title mentions 'report or dashboard' while the description only says 'report', leaving some ambiguity about whether dashboards are also duplicated.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_asset, create_report_from_template, or create_report. The description is self-evident for a simple duplication action but does not clarify relationships, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the schema.
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.