Testsy

Duplicate a test

duplicate_test

Copy a test under a new title: the test's info is copied over (start address, requirement, plan, options and files). Its run history and schedules stay with the original. The copy counts toward the plan's test limit. Without title it is named " (copy)". Pass projectId to put the copy in another project of the workspace.

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": {
      "testId": "<testId>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Title of the copy (up to 200 characters); default: the original title with " (copy)"
`testId`	Yes	Test id (t_…)
`projectId`	No	Project for the copy (p_…); default: the original's project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses the substantive side effects: exactly which fields propagate, that run history and schedules stay with the original, and that the copy consumes a slot in the plan's test limit. The default naming fallback is also surfaced, so an agent knows a title is optional in practice.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the copy/retain split, the quota impact, and the parameter notes. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Complete for a three-parameter duplication tool with no output schema — the copy semantics and quota effect are the important unknowns and both are covered. The one gap is that it never hints at what the call returns (presumably the new test with a new testId), which an agent would want for follow-up calls.

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 100%, so the default title behavior and projectId default are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates them. It adds only a small amount of meaning ("another project of the workspace"), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 test under a new title") and immediately enumerates what is duplicated versus retained, which implicitly separates it from create_test (build from scratch) and update_test (modify in place). An agent can predict the outcome without opening the schema.

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?

The copy semantics plus "Pass `projectId` to put the copy in another project of the workspace" give clear context for the main variation of use. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over create_test or how the plan test limit interacts with the decision, so there are no true exclusions.

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

All Testsy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.