Frontman for WordPress

wp_elementor_duplicate_element

Destructive

Duplicates an Elementor element next to the original in one save with a private rollback. Optional settings override only the cloned root with a shallow merge: settings: {text: "Try It Now", link: {url: "/try/"}} replaces the complete link object. HTML widget settings.html overrides are forbidden.

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "post_id": "<post_id>",
      "element_id": "<element_id>"
    },
    "name": "wp_elementor_duplicate_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`post_id`	Yes	WordPress post/page ID.
`site_id`	Yes	The connected site's id returned by list_sites. Call list_sites first; do not use a URL or WordPress post ID.
`settings`	No
`element_id`	Yes	Elementor element ID from page structure or selected-element context.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does add real value: a single atomic save, a private rollback, settings applied only to the cloned root, and a prohibition on HTML widget settings.html. It does not disclose what is returned (new element id, rollback reference) or whether the clone keeps child elements, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then constraints, with no filler sentences. The middle sentence is dense but the inline example earns its space by making shallow-merge behavior concrete.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers placement, atomicity, rollback availability, and merge/forbidden-field rules. The notable gap is the result: an agent cannot tell whether the response yields the new element ID or a rollback handle to pass to wp_elementor_list_rollbacks or wp_elementor_restore_rollback.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and the three required IDs are already documented in the schema. The description meaningfully augments the otherwise opaque settings object: shallow merge that replaces complete nested objects, a concrete example showing link.url replacing the whole link, and the settings.html restriction. That is substantive semantics beyond the schema's empty additionalProperties object.

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 and resource ("Duplicates an Elementor element") plus placement ("next to the original") and atomicity ("in one save"). It is distinguishable from add/generate/update siblings by the placement and single-save semantics, though it never names a sibling to route against (e.g., wp_duplicate_post).

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent can infer this is for cloning an existing element rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus wp_elementor_add_element or wp_duplicate_post, and no statement of when the duplicate-and-override pattern should be preferred over add-then-update.

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

All Frontman for WordPress 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.