plan-to-eat-mcp

duplicate_planner_event

Duplicate a planner event by its ID, with an option to mark the copy as a leftover.

Instructions

Duplicate a planner event. Set plan_leftover=true to mark the copy as a leftover.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_planner_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`plan_leftover`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description explains the effect of the optional parameter (plan_leftover) on the copy, indicating that the copy can be marked as leftover. However, it does not specify whether the original event remains unchanged, what the result of the operation is (e.g., new event ID), or any side effects or permissions needed, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core action and the one key parameter behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the duplicated event object or a success indicator). It also omits any preconditions (e.g., whether the original must exist) or postconditions. While the action is simple, the lack of return value or error information makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, and the tool description only explains the meaning of plan_leftover (marking the copy as leftover). The id parameter is not explained, though it is inferable as the identifier of the event to duplicate. This partial coverage leaves the semantics of id vague, and the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Duplicate') and the object ('a planner event'), which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like move or reorder. The use of 'duplicate' leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move or reorder. It only describes the action, not the conditions under which duplication is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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