Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

LexQ

by io.lexq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Clone Policy Version

lexq_versions_clone

Clone an existing version to create a new DRAFT. Useful when the source version is already published. The new DRAFT counts toward the limit of 20 DRAFT versions per group, and a source with more than 100 rules cannot be cloned.

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": {
      "groupId": "<groupId>",
      "versionId": "<versionId>"
    },
    "name": "lexq_versions_clone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupIdYesPolicy group ID
versionIdYesSource version ID to clone

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds operational constraints the annotations cannot express: the 20-DRAFT-per-group quota consumption and the hard 100-rule ceiling that causes failure. It does not state whether the clone copies rules, requirements, or targeting intact, nor what permissions are required.

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?

Three short sentences: action, use case, then limits. The purpose is front-loaded and each following sentence contributes a distinct, non-redundant constraint with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what comes back (presumably the new version identifier) or that the clone is returned in DRAFT state with copied or defaulted rules. Given the hard quotas and failure condition mentioned, an agent knows how it can fail but not what success yields.

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 both UUIDs are already documented. The description only adds that versionId refers to the *source* being cloned and that groupId is the scope for the draft limit; that is marginal value over the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Clone an existing version') plus the resulting state ('create a new DRAFT'), which distinguishes it from the plain create path in lexq_versions_create. It stops short of naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'existing'.

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?

'Useful when the source version is already published' gives a concrete selection condition that implies the alternative (build a new version from scratch). It never explicitly names lexq_versions_create as the alternative, and it does not say when cloning is inappropriate besides the implicit published-version case.

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

All LexQ toolsInspect
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.

Resources