Duplicate an mBlock project to a new destination path, enabling safe testing of edits without altering the original.
Duplicate a project to a new path (safe way to try edits).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | Destination .mblock path | |
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a safety framing ('safe way to try edits') but does not disclose operational details such as what happens if the destination already exists or whether the original project is left untouched.
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 front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the core action first and adds a meaningful parenthetical about safe editing.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is close to sufficient, but it still leaves the source 'path' parameter undocumented and gives only implied usage guidance. No output schema exists, so return behavior is also unaddressed.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It mentions duplicating 'to a new path', which loosely maps to 'dest', but provides no clarification of the source 'path' parameter or how it relates to 'dest'.
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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('a project'), and clarifies the operation's purpose with 'safe way to try edits'. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like project-open, project-new, or project-archive by naming the duplication action.
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 phrase 'safe way to try edits' implies when the tool should be used, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is present but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.