Creates a restorable backup copy of a PixInsight image view, preserving FITS keywords, astrometric solution, and view properties. Restore it later with restore_from_clone.
Clone an image to a backup view, which can be restored from later with restore_from_clone. The clone keeps the image's FITS keywords, astrometric solution and view properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clone_id | Yes | Name for the clone | |
| source_id | Yes | Source view ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the clone preserves FITS keywords, astrometric solution and view properties, implying a faithful copy that leaves the source intact. It doesn't cover cost, memory duplication, or any workspace/permission constraints, so it stops short of full disclosure.
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: the purpose and restore path come first, then the preserved attributes. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.
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?
With only two documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (a restorable backup view) and what it preserves. It omits whether the clone appears as a new open view or where it lives in the workspace, a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.
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 100% (both source_id and clone_id are documented), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implicit framing of clone_id as a view name via 'backup view,' which is marginal beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb (clone) and resource (image) and defines the outcome (a backup view). It also names the complementary sibling restore_from_clone, so an agent can distinguish this tool from other image-manipulation tools without opening a schema.
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?
It clearly frames the use case — creating a backup you intend to restore later — and points at restore_from_clone as the paired operation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or note about prerequisites, keeping it just below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.