Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Sites MCP

Google Sites MCP

by RXDG2908
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Duplicate a section

gsites_duplicate_section

Duplicate a Google Sites section by its 1-based index so the copied section appears directly below the original, enabling quick layout reuse.

Instructions

Duplicate section index (1-based). The copy appears right below it.

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "gsites_duplicate_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't: the copy is placed immediately below the original. It does not say whether content/blocks are deep-copied or how the new section is identified afterward.

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?

Two short sentences with the constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Every phrase carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, where the result lands, and the indexing base. Minor gaps are the lack of any precondition about an open page and no note on repeated invocation creating additional copies.

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 0% for the single `index` parameter, so the description must carry the load, and it does clarify that indexing is 1-based. That resolves the main ambiguity, though the schema's minimum of 1 already hints at it and the description doesn't explain what index is relative to (page order of sections).

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?

States a specific verb (duplicate) and resource (section) and names the target parameter, which cleanly separates it from siblings like gsites_move_section and gsites_delete_section. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, so it lands at a clear 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself: an agent infers you call this when you want a second copy of an existing section. There is no statement of when to prefer this over gsites_add_block or set_insert_point, and no prerequisite context (e.g. a page must be open).

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