dForms

Duplicate a form

duplicate_form

Copy a form, with its live config, into a new form named " (copy)", in the same folder, with its own link and no responses. The copy is live at once. Not idempotent: after a failure or a timeout, list_forms shows whether the copy was created before a retry.

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form_id`	Yes	The form id, from list_forms or get_form.
`workspace_id`	No	The workspace this call acts in: an id from list_my_workspaces. Required for a person signed in with several workspaces and for staff of this deployment; optional with an API key or with only one workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form`	Yes
`workspace`	Yes	The workspace this call acted in, to compare with the one the user means.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description is fully consistent with them. It earns credit for disclosing the copy's full resulting state (live config, same folder, new name suffix, own link, no responses, live immediately) and for flagging non-idempotency with a retry procedure. However, the non-idempotency is already in the annotations, so the description's added value is the state details rather than new risk information.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the outcome first and the retry caveat second. Every clause carries information: name suffix, folder, link, response state, timing, and recovery. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 a two-parameter tool with a full output schema and existing annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it and recover from failure: what is copied, where it lands, how it is named, what it does not include, and how to verify after an error. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both form_id and workspace_id (including the multi-workspace requirement and API-key behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but leaves this at the baseline.

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 a form ... into a new form") plus the exact resulting state: named "<name> (copy)", same folder, own link, no responses. This is precise enough to distinguish it from create_form, which would produce a blank form rather than a copy of an existing live config.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context and a concrete recovery path, naming the sibling list_forms to check after a failure or timeout before retrying. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_form, but the described outcome (copy of live config vs. a new form) makes the selection condition inferable rather than absent.

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

All dForms 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?