Relinta

Duplicate a playbook

duplicatePlaybook

Destructive

Duplicate a playbook

Creates a new active playbook at version 1 from the source playbook's current configuration. The source may be active or archived. Omit description to copy the source description; pass null to clear it.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "duplicatePlaybook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`headers`	Yes
`httpStatus`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds useful state facts beyond them: the copy lands as an active playbook at version 1 and archived sources are accepted. It omits anything about permissions, side effects on the source, or what else is carried over (schedules, assignments).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with outcome then the description-copy rule. The opening 'Duplicate a playbook' line restates the title, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's key outcome state and source flexibility. A nested-body tool with a required name field would benefit from one more line on what the new name field means and whether anything besides configuration is copied.

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 0%, so the description plausibly carries the burden. It does clarify the tricky description-field semantics (omit copies the source description, null clears it), but the new playbook's 'name' parameter is left completely unaddressed even though it is required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (duplicate a playbook) and elaborates with the outcome: a new active playbook at version 1 built from the source's current configuration. That distinguishes it from createPlaybook in practice, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives a real usage condition ('the source may be active or archived'), which tells an agent duplicating is valid regardless of source state. It does not say when to duplicate versus call createPlaybook, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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

All Relinta 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.

Resources

Need Help?