Apache Zeppelin MCP Server

clone_notebook

Duplicates an existing notebook, optionally with a new name or path. Use it to create a copy for backup or experimentation without modifying the original.

Instructions

Clone an existing notebook. Optionally rename the copy.

Args:
    notebook_id: The notebook ID to clone
    new_name: Optional full path/name for the cloned notebook (e.g. "Users/john/Project/Copy").
              If omitted, Zeppelin auto-generates a name in the source's parent folder.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`new_name`	No
`notebook_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description genuinely adds the default naming/location behavior ('auto-generates a name in the source's parent folder'), but it does not disclose what a clone actually copies (paragraphs, config, permissions) or whether the source is modified.

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?

The behavioral summary is front-loaded in two short sentences, followed by a compact Args block. The Args block partly restates schema titles, but given 0% schema coverage that restatement is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

With only two parameters, complete param docs, and an output schema handling return values, the definition is usable. The remaining gap is what the clone contains and whether source permissions/collaborators carry over — material for a mutation tool with no destructive hint to warn about side effects.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does: new_name is defined as a full path/name with a concrete example and an explicit default-behavior fallback. notebook_id's entry ('The notebook ID to clone') is thinner and adds little beyond the parameter name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clone an existing notebook') with the added nuance that renaming is optional, which cleanly distinguishes it from create_notebook. It never names or contrasts with the closest siblings (create_notebook, import_notebook, clone_paragraph), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the word 'clone' — the agent can infer you use it to duplicate an existing notebook rather than make a blank one. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_notebook or import_notebook, and no stated prerequisites (permissions on the source).

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