Duplicate a design node with its entire subtree, assigning fresh IDs and placing the copy directly after the original for quick reuse.
Copy a node and everything under it, under fresh ids, right after the original. The move a designer makes constantly — build one card, duplicate it twice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| force | No | Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced | |
| dry_run | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.63.0Input schema / properties / forceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation is implied but not risky. The description adds 'fresh ids' and 'right after the original', which are useful behavioral specifics. However, it does not explain the 'force' parameter or what happens with dry_run, nor any side effects like affecting parent structure. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core functionality is front-loaded, and the casual example reinforces the purpose without adding bulk. Perfectly sized for an MCP tool description.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the main action but leaves gaps around parameter behavior and edge cases. It is not overly incomplete, but an agent might need to infer the function of 'force' and 'dry_run' or explore the tool schema further.
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 only 33%, meaning the 'force' and 'dry_run' parameters have no schema descriptions. The description provides no additional meaning for these parameters, leaving them ambiguous. It only clarifies the 'id' parameter implicitly through the context of copying a node, but fails to explain the guard that 'force' overrides.
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 clearly states the verb 'Copy' and the resource 'node and everything under it', plus the specific behavior of placing the copy 'right after the original' with 'fresh ids'. This distinctly separates it from siblings like sb_add, sb_set, or sb_move, which involve different operations.
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?
The description implies common usage ('move a designer makes constantly') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sb_move or sb_add. It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions that would route the agent clearly to this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.