CDP MCP Server

cdp_copy_squery_def

Create a duplicate of a query definition by ID to reuse or modify existing queries in the CDP platform.

Instructions

Copy a SQueryDef by ID. Creates a duplicate of the query definition.

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": {
      "squery_def_id": "<squery_def_id>"
    },
    "name": "cdp_copy_squery_def"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`squery_def_id`	Yes
`tenant_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'creates a duplicate' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the copy inherits settings, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context. It states the purpose but misses behavioral transparency and parameter semantics needed for a mutation tool. Completeness is borderline viable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at 'squery_def_id', but doesn't explain what an SQueryDef is, the purpose of 'tenant_id', or their formats. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Copy') and resource ('SQueryDef by ID'), specifying it creates a duplicate. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_create_squery_def' (create new) and 'cdp_get_squery_def' (retrieve), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cdp_clone_resource' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdp_clone_resource' or 'cdp_create_squery_def'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing SQueryDef ID).

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

Deploy Server