Spice MCP

Fork Saved Query

dune_query_fork

Fork an existing saved Dune query using its ID to create a new editable copy. Optionally assign a new name.

Instructions

Fork an existing saved Dune query. Requires SPICE_DUNE_ALLOW_SAVES=true.

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": {
      "source_query_id": "<source_query_id>"
    },
    "name": "dune_query_fork"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_query_id`	Yes
`name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 1, 2025

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions a prerequisite but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the fork is a deep copy, side effects, or return behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise with one sentence and a condition. However, it sacrifices essential information at the cost of brevity, making it borderline under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, the description should cover return values, parameter details, and side effects. It fails to do so, leaving gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain the 'name' parameter or any constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Fork an existing saved Dune query,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from similar tools like dune_query_create, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Only one usage condition is provided (environment variable requirement). No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new query or updating an existing one.

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

Deploy Server