Skip to main content
Glama

Copy project

copy_project

Copy an existing project's settings and optionally its work packages into a new project, using the original as a template for a new engagement or release.

Instructions

Copy a project — its settings, and optionally its work packages — into a new one.

Use it to spin a new engagement or release off a template project, which is the only way to reproduce a project's members, versions, categories and enabled modules in one call. The request goes through POST /projects/{id}/copy/form first, so a name that derives a taken identifier comes back as violations naming the attribute instead of a failed background job.

Copying is ASYNCHRONOUS: OpenProject queues a job and answers immediately. This tool therefore returns {scheduled: true, job_id, status, message, notes} and NEVER claims the copy exists — a large project takes minutes. Poll get_job_status(job_id=...) until status is 'success' (it then reports the new project) or 'failure'.

Pitfalls: only include_work_packages and notify are exposed; every other copy flag (members, versions, wiki, boards, file links) keeps this instance's own default, which the form fills in — so the copy can contain more than the two parameters suggest. A 403 means the account may not copy this project (it needs the 'copy project' permission on the template plus the right to create projects). Work packages come across with their relations, but time entries and comment histories do not.

Cross-references: get_job_status follows the job to completion; list_projects or get_project confirms the result; create_project makes an empty project instead; update_project renames the copy afterwards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notifyNoSend OpenProject notification emails for everything the copy creates. false (default) keeps a large copy quiet; the copy itself is identical.
new_nameYesDisplay name of the copy, e.g. 'Apollo migration (2027)'. OpenProject derives the copy's URL identifier from it; the derived value is reported by get_job_status once the job succeeds.
id_or_identifierYesNumeric id or URL identifier of the project to copy (the TEMPLATE, not the copy). Both are accepted and come from list_projects or get_project.
include_work_packagesNoCopy the template's work packages too (default). false copies the project shell — members, versions, categories, wiki and the other settings the instance defaults to — without any tickets.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoWhat is still outstanding. Always says the copy has to be polled.
job_idNoBackground job id — pass it to get_job_status. Null when the instance reported none; 'notes' then says what to do instead.
sourceYesThe project id or identifier that was copied.
statusNoJob state at the moment the copy was accepted, normally 'in_queue'. Null when the instance reported none.
messageNoMessage the job reported, when it carried one.
projectNoThe copy itself ({id, name}) — only populated on the rare instance that finishes the job before answering. Normally null: read it from get_job_status.
new_nameYesName requested for the copy.
scheduledYesTrue once OpenProject accepted the request. The copy itself runs in the background and is not finished when this is true.
Behavior5/5

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: copying is asynchronous, the tool returns a scheduled response and never claims the copy exists, the job may take minutes, permission requirements (403 meaning), and what is and isn't copied (time entries and comment histories are not). Annotations only indicate mutating and non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, usage scenario, async behavior, pitfalls, and cross-references are each in logical paragraphs. Every sentence adds value; length is justified by the tool's complexity. No redundancy with schema or annotations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (async job, permission requirements, default flags, cross-tool dependencies), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return shape, how to poll for status, what the job reports, and even mentions the underlying POST /projects/{id}/copy/form call to explain validation behavior. The existence of an output schema means return-style details are not required, and the description still covers behavioral and procedural aspects.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: id_or_identifier is explicitly the template project, new_name's derived identifier is reported by get_job_status, include_work_packages explains the shell vs. full copy, and notify explains the impact on email volume. This extra semantic context is valuable and not merely schema repetition.

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 states a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Copy a project — its settings, and optionally its work packages — into a new one.' It also distinguishes this from related tools by noting it is the only way to reproduce members, versions, categories, and enabled modules in one call, differentiating it from create_project and update_project.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to spin a new engagement or release off a template project.' It also gives exclusions and alternatives in the cross-references section, naming create_project for an empty project, get_job_status for following the async job, and list_projects/get_project for confirming the result. This is model guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kar-thik/openproject-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server