Duplicate a device or rack with its contents directly after itself in a track or chain. It does not copy a track's instrument; use track duplication or another Instrument Rack chain.
Duplicate a device (racks with their contents) right after itself in its track or chain.
Live will not duplicate a track's instrument: use duplicate_track, or another Instrument Rack chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | ||
| device | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: duplication is right after itself, racks include contents, and track instruments are not duplicated. No contradiction.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No filler; every sentence adds purpose or routing information.
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 description covers purpose, placement, and the key duplicate_track limitation, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the agent still lacks guidance on how to specify the track and device arguments.
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 0% for two required parameters. The description names 'device' and 'track or chain' but does not explain accepted forms (integer/string/array) or how to identify track/device, so it fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.
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?
States a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('device', racks with contents), plus placement in track/chain. It explicitly distinguishes itself from duplicate_track for track instruments.
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?
Gives an explicit alternative: use duplicate_track when trying to duplicate a track's instrument, or use another Instrument Rack chain. This is when-to-use/when-not guidance tied to a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.