Ploi.io MCP Server

Duplicate Ploi database

ploi_duplicate_database

Clone an existing database to a new database on the same server, specifying the new database name and optional credentials.

Instructions

Clone an existing database to a new database on the same server.

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": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>",
      "database_id": "<database_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ploi_duplicate_database"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the new database.
`user`	No	Optional username for the new database user.
`password`	No	Optional password for the new database user.
`server_id`	Yes	Ploi server ID.
`database_id`	Yes	Ploi database ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that cloning occurs on the same server, but no additional details (e.g., impact on existing database, time to complete) are provided.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's action without any wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, the description should hint at return behavior (e.g., returns new database details or success). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., existing server and database). For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 100%, so the description does not add significant meaning beyond the parameter names. The description implies database_id identifies the source but does not elaborate on the new database's name or optional user/password.

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 verb 'clone' and the resource 'database', specifying the action and the scope ('on the same server'). It distinguishes from list and retrieval tools among siblings.

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?

The description implies usage for cloning databases on the same server but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., if a cross-server clone is needed) or when not to use.

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