Scribe Mail

Duplicate a signature

duplicate_signature

Copy a signature into a new one, as the dashboard's Duplicate: a safe copy to try a change on (a new banner, a layout) without touching the original or anyone's signature. The copy gets the source's design (its draft, published as the copy's content) and its reply/internal variants; it is assigned to no one, its installation is off, it has no smart-field rules. Use it instead of reading the design and create_signature. Then edit the copy with update_signature and check it with preview_signature; to bring a tried change back, update_signature the original with the copy's draft_content. Unknown signature → 404; unknown folder → 422. Returns the copy.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	UUID of the signature to copy (from list_signatures).
`name`	No	The copy's name. Omit for "<name> (Copy)", in the user's language.
`context`	Yes	Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
`folder_id`	No	UUID of the folder to file the copy under; null for no folder. Omit for the source's folder.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / folder_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / folder_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / folder_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / folder_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / internal_variant_uuid / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / internal_variant_uuid / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / last_published_at / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / last_published_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / name / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / priority / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / priority / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / reply_variant_uuid / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / reply_variant_uuid / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only flagging it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent open-world write, the description goes well beyond: it discloses what the copy inherits (design drafted into content, reply/internal variants) and what it explicitly does not (no assignee, installation off, no smart-field rules). It also documents failure modes (404 unknown signature, 422 unknown folder) and that it returns the copy.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then behavior, then workflow guidance — each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition. Dense but every clause earns its place.

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 copy/mutation tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: inheritance semantics, rollback path, and error codes. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so id, name, folder_id, and context are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'assigned to no one' and inherited content is behavioral rather than parameter-level, and it adds no enum, format, or default detail beyond the schema's own '<name> (Copy)' and folder-inheritance defaults. Baseline 3 fits when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy a signature into a new one') and immediately anchors the mental model to the dashboard's Duplicate, distinguishing it from create_signature. An agent can tell exactly what operation this is without further reading.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to use this 'instead of reading the design and create_signature', then lays out the follow-on workflow (edit with update_signature, verify with preview_signature, and roll back by updating the original with the copy's draft_content). This gives when-to-use and named alternatives, not just implied context.

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

All Scribe Mail 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.