duplicate_siteServer-side copy of an owned site under a new slug — instantly live. Copies files + title; does NOT copy access settings, domains, or data. Great for iterating on variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | site slug to copy | |
| title | No | display title for the new copy (defaults to source title) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"site slug to copy"Input schema / properties / title / descriptionAdded value: +"display title for the new copy (defaults to source title)"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide idempotentHint=false. Description adds behavioral details: server-side copy, instantly live, and explicit list of copied vs. non-copied attributes. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences: first states core functionality, second lists copied attributes and use case. No redundancy, front-loaded, efficient.
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?
Given simple 2-parameter tool with output schema, description covers what, how, and why. Addresses scope (copied vs. non-copied) and typical use case, making it complete.
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% with both parameters described. Description reinforces that slug is the new slug and title is optional defaulting to source, but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb 'duplicate' and resource 'site' with clear scope: server-side copy under new slug, instantly live. Distinguishes from siblings by listing what is copied (files+title) and what is not (access, domains, data).
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?
Explicitly states when to use ('Great for iterating on variants') and implicitly when not (if you need to copy access settings, domains, or data). Could be improved by naming alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.