Copy a PAN, OND, BTR, or GEN component from the workspace or builtin library into your workspace under a new name, without overwriting existing files. Legacy PAN bytes are preserved.
[Components] Copy a PAN/OND/BTR/GEN into the workspace without overwrite. Legacy PAN bytes are preserved. Source library is workspace or read-only builtin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| source_name | Yes | ||
| component_type | Yes | ||
| source_library | No | workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-overwrite guarantee, preservation of legacy PAN bytes, and the two possible source libraries, but says nothing about what happens on a name collision (error vs rename), permission/read-only constraints on the builtin source, or what the operation returns.
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 scoping constraint, with no filler. The telegraphic style and unexplained acronyms (PAN/OND/BTR/GEN) cost a little readability.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral facts (no overwrite, legacy bytes kept, source library options). It still leaves an agent without conflict-handling behavior, return content, or a clear reason to prefer it over clone_component.
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 description coverage is 0%, so all four parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by expanding the component types to PAN/OND/BTR/GEN and by describing source_library's accepted values, but source_name and new_name semantics and any naming rules for new_name remain unstated.
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?
States a specific verb (copy) and resource (component) with scope: into the workspace, no overwrite, legacy PAN bytes preserved. The bracketed [Components] tag helps group it. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling pvsyst_clone_component, which reads as a near-synonym in this toolset.
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?
The 'without overwrite' constraint and the note that the source library can be workspace or the read-only builtin imply intended usage and prerequisites, but the agent is left to infer when to use copy_component versus clone_component. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.