Azquo

Copy from library

copy_from_library

Copy one database from the shared Azquo library into the current business, with its reports, import templates and uploaded file types. ASK THE USER FIRST: confirm 'Copy into ?' and wait for a yes before calling this — never copy speculatively or as a side effect of a browse request. Use current_business to name the target in that question, and list_library for the available database names. Nothing is ever overwritten: if the name is already taken in the target business the copy lands as 'name_1', 'name_2', and so on. Always tell the user the target name from the result, which is the name the database is actually stored under and may differ from the one they asked for — database names are sanitised, so spaces become underscores and punctuation is dropped.

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": {
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "copy_from_library"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`business`	No	Optional. The business this call is for, by name, e.g. "azquo" - it then runs there whatever business the session is in. Worth giving on writes when you work in more than one business: a new MCP session starts in the login's own business. list_businesses shows the names.
`database`	Yes	Name of the library database to copy, exactly as returned by list_library.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / business

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The business this call is for, by name, e.g. \"azquo\" - it then runs there whatever business the session is in. Worth giving on writes when you work in more than one business: a new MCP session starts in the login's own business. list_businesses shows the names.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false): it discloses that nothing is ever overwritten and that collisions become 'name_1', 'name_2', that names are sanitised (spaces to underscores, punctuation dropped), and that the returned `target` may differ from what the user asked for. These are exactly the mutation-side facts an agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the confirmation protocol, then behavior, then output guidance — every sentence carries distinct information. It is on the long side for a two-parameter tool, with a couple of clauses that could be tightened, but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and it does so, telling the agent to report the `target` name from the result and why it may differ. Combined with the collision and sanitisation rules, an agent has everything needed to call this safely and report the outcome accurately.

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?

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying values to sibling tools (list_library for valid database names, current_business to name the target business) and by explaining the naming/sanitisation semantics that determine what the stored name will be. It doesn't add format constraints for the `business` param itself, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy one database from the shared Azquo library into the current business') plus the payload that comes along with it (reports, import templates, uploaded file types). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_database, try_on_copy, and copy_azquo_skills without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: confirm 'Copy <database> into <business>?' with the user and wait for yes, and never copy speculatively or as a side effect of a browse request. It also routes the agent to the right sibling tools for each input (current_business for the target, list_library for the source names).

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

All Azquo tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?