Duplicate a flow. Copies the flow as a new draft. Send {} as the body.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "duplicate_flow"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful fact that the copy lands as a draft rather than being published or activated. However, it says nothing about naming/collision behavior, permissions required, or side effects on the source flow.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, with no filler. The trailing 'Send {} as the body' is efficient but slightly cryptic in a schema that marks 'id' as required, which costs a point.
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 one-parameter duplication tool with no output schema, the core action is covered, but the definition never says what comes back — most importantly the new flow's id, which the agent needs to subsequently update or publish the copy. Prerequisite conditions for the source flow are also unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented, so the baseline applies. 'Send {} as the body' does add a little meaning by hinting that id travels as a path parameter and the request body must be empty, but it is terse and an agent could still misread it as meaning id is omitted entirely.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Duplicate a flow') and adds the resulting state ('Copies the flow as a new draft'), which distinguishes it from create_flow or get_flow. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it sits just below the top band.
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?
Usage is only implied: wanting a copy of an existing flow rather than authoring one from scratch. There is no guidance on prerequisites (must the source flow be published? does it copy the draft or the live version?), no mention of when to prefer create_flow, and no note on what happens to the original.
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.