Duvo MCP

Assign Clarity Landscape Node Team

assignClarityLandscapeNodeTeam

Idempotent

Set the owning team of a process in the process landscape (organization admin+). On a proposed process this accepts the proposal and creates the real process for that team; on an existing process it moves the process, its captures and its brief to another team.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgId`	Yes
`intent`	No	Pass "accept-proposal" when the node is expected to still be a proposed process; the call then fails if someone already accepted it, instead of silently moving a real process.
`nodeId`	Yes	The process node whose owning team changes.
`teamId`	Yes	The team that owns the process from now on. A process always belongs to a team, so null is rejected.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: effect on proposed processes (accepts proposal and creates real process), effect on existing processes (moves process, captures, brief). Consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and adds side-effect details not captured in structured fields.

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, front-loaded with primary purpose, then nuanced scenarios. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words or redundant details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Tool has 4 parameters, no output schema. Description covers permission hint (org admin+), behavioral nuance, and associated resources. Minor omission: schema indicates teamId with null is rejected, but description does not mention this. Overall very complete for the complexity level.

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 description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it references 'proposed process' and 'existing process' which align with the intent enum, but the schema's own descriptions already convey that. No significant param insights beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description specifies the verb 'set' and resource 'owning team of a process in the process landscape', clearly distinguishing between proposed and existing processes. This differentiates from siblings like acceptClarityLandscapeNode or assignClarityProcessLabels by focusing on the team assignment action.

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?

The description gives clear context on when to use: for assigning a team, with explicit scenarios for proposed processes (accept proposal) and existing processes (move). Though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, the two scenarios provide strong usage guidance.

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

All Duvo MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.

Tool Count1/5

With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.

Resources

Need Help?