MCP Teamleader Focus

teamleader_duplicate_project

Copy an existing project to a new project with a custom title. Provide the project ID and new title to create a duplicate.

Instructions

Duplicate an existing project into a new project with the given title.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "teamleader_duplicate_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The project ID to duplicate
`title`	Yes	Title for the new (duplicated) project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic duplication action and does not disclose whether tasks, custom fields, customer links, or other project data are copied, whether the source project is modified, or what the return value is. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single well-structured sentence, front-loads the action, and contains every word necessary to convey the core operation without filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description supplies enough to invoke it, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what the call returns or what project data is carried over. An agent can call the tool correctly but would be uncertain about the result and side effects.

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% and both id and title have clear schema descriptions. The tool description only echoes the title concept ('with the given title') without adding extra format or constraint details, so the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Duplicate an existing project into a new project with the given title.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like create_project or update_project by naming the duplication operation and the destination new project.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for copying an existing project when a title is supplied. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over create_project, nor does it give any exclusionary guidance or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server