Copy all pages and content from an existing board into a new one, preserving image and file references.
复制白板的全部页面与内容；图片和文件引用保留。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| boardId | Yes | ||
| expectedVersion | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| boards | No | ||
| pageId | No | ||
| boardId | No | ||
| current | No | ||
| deleted | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| alignedIds | No | ||
| deletedIds | No | ||
| elementIds | No | ||
| updatedIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond that: image and file references are preserved (not re-uploaded/deep-copied). However, it says nothing about the created board becoming a new separate board, permission requirements, or concurrency behaviour.
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 short clauses, verb-first and front-loaded, with zero padding. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the parameter and usage gaps it leaves unaddressed.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Against a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotation-level detail on versioning, the description covers the core effect and reference semantics but leaves the required title/versioning contract entirely unexplained.
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% for 3 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing. It never mentions that a required `title` names the new board, what `boardId` identifies, or that `expectedVersion` is an optional optimistic-concurrency guard — a notably confusing gap given the mutation also produces a new named resource.
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?
The description states a specific verb (复制/duplicate) and resource (白板/whiteboard) with scope clarified as 全部页面与内容 (all pages and content), which separates it from whiteboard_create (new blank board) and whiteboard_export. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as whiteboard_create or whiteboard_export. The agent must infer that duplication makes a full copy rather than reusing or exporting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.