RooQuiz

Duplicate form

duplicate_form

Duplicate a form in the current team: clones its structure, scoring, report, visual settings and all language translations into a brand-new form owned by you (with fresh share links). Does NOT copy submission records, sharing, integrations, or ban state. Useful for cloning a proven quiz and tweaking it. Not idempotent: if the call times out it may still have succeeded, so retrying blindly can create a duplicate — check first, then retry only if it is really missing.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`newTitle`	No	Optional title for the copy; defaults to "<source title> (copy)"
`sourceFormId`	Yes	The form UUID to duplicate

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The new (copied) form id
`url`	No	Admin edit URL of the copy
`scene`	No	knowledge_quiz / scored_quiz / outcome_quiz / ai_quiz
`title`	No	Title of the copy
`shareUrl`	No	Public share / answer link of the copy
`fieldCount`	No	How many questions were copied
`publicToken`	No	Fresh token of the copy
`translationLanguages`	No	Languages copied along with the structure

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / scene / description

Previous value: -"knowledge_quiz / scored_quiz / outcome_quiz"New value: +"knowledge_quiz / scored_quiz / outcome_quiz / ai_quiz"

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by listing what is NOT copied (submissions, sharing, integrations, ban state), noting fresh share links and your ownership, and flagging non-idempotency with a concrete failure mode. That timeout/retry warning is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, what it excludes, and how to handle failure. Scope and exclusions are front-loaded, and the retry caveat is placed last where it belongs. No 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?

An output schema covers return values, and the description already handles the remaining unknowns for a mutation tool: copy scope, ownership, side effects, and safe retry behavior. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to recover from a timeout.

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%, and the schema itself documents newTitle's default and sourceFormId's UUID type, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context (the copy is owned by you with fresh share links) but does not elaborate on either parameter beyond what the schema states.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Duplicate a form") and immediately scopes it ("in the current team"), then enumerates exactly what is cloned: structure, scoring, report, visual settings, translations. This clearly separates it from create_form and create_form_from_template, which produce a form from scratch rather than copying an existing one.

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 a concrete use case ("cloning a proven quiz and tweaking it") and an explicit retry protocol ("check first, then retry only if it is really missing"). It stops short of naming alternatives like create_form_from_template or create_form, so an agent must infer when duplication beats template creation.

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

All RooQuiz 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?