Panes

fork

Destructive

Protected computers refuse cloning. Partial failures return the snapshot and all copies that started; retain their IDs before retrying.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "fork"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`body`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent; the description adds useful failure behavior by saying protected computers refuse cloning and partial failures return the snapshot plus started copies. It does not cover success-side effects, permissions, or broader retry implications, so it adds context without being comprehensive.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler, and the retry instruction is compact. Its structure is terse rather than verbose, though it front-loads an edge case instead of the core operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is materially incomplete. It explains one failure mode but omits the core operation, parameter meaning, and success return behavior.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the id parameter or body.count. It provides no added meaning for either required parameter, despite the schema carrying no parameter explanations itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description implies a cloning operation through "refuse cloning" and discusses snapshots/copies, but never states plainly what is being forked or what the tool does on success. The tool name "fork" carries most of the meaning, leaving the purpose only indirectly conveyed.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as snapshot or backup_restore. The only actionable guidance is to retain returned IDs before retrying after a partial failure, which addresses recovery but not tool selection.

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

All Panes 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.