esa MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Duplicate a post

esa_duplicate_post

Creates a new WIP copy of an existing post with the same name and Markdown body, optionally in a different team, to reuse content without manual recreation.

Instructions

Duplicates a post by creating a new WIP post with the same name and body_md as the source post. By default the duplicate is created in the source team; specify targetTeamName to duplicate into a different team.

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": {
      "postNumber": "<postNumber>"
    },
    "name": "esa_duplicate_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`teamName`	No	Team name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams.
`postNumber`	Yes	The source post number to duplicate
`targetTeamName`	No	The destination team name for the duplicated post. Defaults to the source team when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.15.1Oct 31, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.13.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description is highly transparent by specifying that the duplication process preserves the source post's name and body_md, and crucially, that the resulting post is designated as a WIP post.

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, using two direct sentences to cover the 'what', 'how', and 'where' of the duplication process without unnecessary fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The definition is complete. It covers the input requirements (source post number) and the expected outcome behavior (WIP post creation, team placement), making it unambiguous for a model to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Given that schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by clarifying that targetTeamName defaults to the source team when omitted, which is a critical semantic detail for the optional parameter.

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 function (duplicates a post) and the resulting state (creating a new WIP post), which distinguishes it from general creation or search tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit usage guidance by defining the default behavior (source team) and the conditional usage of the targetTeamName parameter to override that default.

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