duplicate_goalDuplicate a goal, optionally with a new name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Source goal ID (from list_goals) | |
| new_name | No | Name for the copy |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The copy — its own new id, plus the target, operator and query. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"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."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the optional renaming behavior, but it does not describe side effects, what the duplicate inherits, or what happens to the source goal. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core operation is stated first and the optional parameter behavior is appended naturally, making it easy to parse.
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 tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It only lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the operation correctly.
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 fully documents both parameters. The description reinforces that new_name is optional, which is also implied by the schema's required list, but it adds no new semantic detail beyond the structured definitions.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Duplicate a goal') and adds the optional renaming behavior, making it immediately distinguishable from related operations like create_goal, update_goal, and archive_goal. It clearly states what the tool does without ambiguity.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_goal, update_goal, or other duplicate_* tools. The intended context is only implied by the word 'duplicate' rather than explicitly stated.
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.