Duplicate objects multiple times, shifting each copy by specified dx/dy millimeters while preserving their original layer.
Copy objects count times, each copy shifted by another (dx, dy) mm. Copies keep the layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dx | Yes | ||
| dy | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| names | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that copies keep the layer and are shifted by dx/dy, but it does not clarify whether the originals are modified, whether the operation is additive, or what happens with the existing selection.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation and packs in the offset, count, units, and layer behavior efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description leaves the required 'names' parameter under-specified and provides no routing guidance relative to similar transformation tools. It is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by giving units for dx/dy and explaining count, but it never explains the required 'names' parameter or explicitly maps it to the 'objects' being copied.
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 clear verb ('Copy') and resource ('objects'), and specifies the offset semantics in mm. The copy-and-shift behavior distinguishes it from siblings like move_object and mirror, though no sibling is explicitly named.
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 intended use case of duplicating objects with a repeated offset is implied, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_object, offset, or mirror, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.