Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

node_plugins_clone

Duplicate an existing node plugin by its UUID to create a new copy for reuse or modification in the Remnawave VPN panel.

Instructions

Clone a node plugin

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "node_plugins_clone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesPlugin UUID to clone

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only repeats the action. It doesn't disclose side effects such as whether a new plugin record is created, whether settings/associations are copied, or whether an existing plugin must be active, nor does it mention idempotency or permissions.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the lack of any additional context makes it feel under-built rather than appropriately detailed.

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?

Despite a simple one-parameter schema, there is no output schema and no annotation support, so the description must explain what the clone operation returns and what happens to the original plugin. None of that is present, making the tool under-specified for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'uuid' is already described as 'Plugin UUID to clone.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 names a concrete verb ('Clone') and resource ('a node plugin'), so an agent knows what object and action are involved. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from node_plugins_create/update/delete, but 'clone' is a distinct operation and no other node-plugin cloning sibling exists.

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?

No guidance is given about when cloning is appropriate versus creating or updating a plugin, nor any prerequisites or alternatives. The description leaves the usage decision entirely to inference from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools