Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
carmaker-mcp

carmaker-mcp

by dimitr-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Copy a project data file

cm_clone

Duplicate an existing project file under a new name without overwriting the original; copy test runs to reuse their driver and knowledge for another vehicle.

Instructions

Copy a project file to a new name in the same kind's folder. Never overwrites. A copied test run keeps the source's driver and knowledge (driver): check them for another vehicle.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "base": "<base>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "cm_clone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYesExisting file to copy
kindYesKind of project data; selects the folder below <project>/Data
new_nameYesName of the copy (must not exist)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered; the description adds real value beyond them with 'Never overwrites' and the copy-semantics disclosure that a cloned test run retains the source's driver and knowledge. It still says nothing about permissions or what happens to linked entities in other kinds.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the most important constraint ('Never overwrites'). The final clause about the copied test run's driver/knowledge is dense and slightly cryptic but earns its place as non-obvious behavior.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the key non-obvious behaviors (no overwrite, retained driver/knowledge). Minor gaps remain around required permissions and what a copy does for non-testrun kinds.

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 description coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, so the schema carries the load and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'new name' and the same-kind folder constraint but adds no format, naming, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Copy a project file') and constrains the destination ('to a new name in the same kind's folder'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not name a sibling such as cm_create or cm_edit to disambiguate copy-vs-create, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

'Never overwrites' and the note about copied test runs imply when copying is safe/appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the constraints rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools