Duplicate an existing image by specifying its ID to create an identical copy for editing or backup.
Create a copy of an existing image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_id | Yes | ID of the image to duplicate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | Image width in pixels | |
| height | Yes | Image height in pixels | |
| message | Yes | Status message | |
| image_id | Yes | Unique identifier for the captured image |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a copy is created and does not explain whether the original is modified, whether permissions are required, how the new image is identified, or what side effects occur.
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 concise sentence that states the core operation immediately with no filler or redundant content. It is optimally sized for the simple one-parameter tool.
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, has only one parameter, and an output schema exists, so the missing return-value documentation is not a gap. However, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, the description is only minimally viable for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
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 100%, with image_id already documented as 'ID of the image to duplicate.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('Create a copy') and a specific resource ('an existing image'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes duplicate_image from siblings like delete_image or resize_image, and the name plus description avoid confusion with copy_to_clipboard.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_image, copy_to_clipboard, or export_session. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred context, leaving the agent to infer when duplication is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.