Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Authorize Mcp OAuth

authorizeMcpOAuth

Start an OAuth-based connection with a remote MCP server using Dynamic Client Registration. Returns an authorization URL the user must open in a browser; once they grant consent, Duvo creates the matching connection and redirects the browser to the optional returnUrl.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable name to display for the connection.
team_idNoDuvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.
return_urlNoWhere to send the user's browser after consent completes. Accepts an absolute URL on a domain Duvo allows, or a path relative to the Duvo frontend (e.g. `/integrations/slack`).
mcp_server_urlYesURL of the MCP server requiring OAuth.
oauth_client_idNoOAuth client ID of a client the user registered on the authorization server themselves (e.g. a NetSuite Integration record). Takes precedence over preregistered credentials and Dynamic Client Registration. Cannot be combined with custom_integration_id. On reconnect, omit to reuse the connection's stored credentials, or provide to replace (rotate) them.
integration_typeNoOptional catalog integration type (e.g. `netsuite`, `asana`). When it names a known MCP OAuth catalog integration and `mcp_server_url` matches that integration's registered server, the connection is treated as a catalog connection; otherwise it requires the custom MCP servers capability.
oauth_client_secretNoClient secret for `oauth_client_id`. Omit for public clients (PKCE-only).
custom_integration_idNoOptional ID of a custom integration this connection should be associated with.
reconnect_instance_idNoWhen set, the OAuth flow will update the existing connection in place rather than creating a new one.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the key behavioral flow: it returns an authorization URL that the user must open, and Duvo creates the connection after consent and redirects to returnUrl. This adds meaningful context beyond the sparse boolean annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), clarifying the multi-step, user-involving nature of the operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and mechanism. Every phrase earns its place: initiating the flow, the DCR method, the authorization URL, the consent step, the connection creation, and the returnUrl redirect. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat brief, but the rich schema fills in the details (e.g., team_id, oauth_client_id, reconnect_instance_id). The description provides the essential conceptual model—OAuth with DCR and the browser-based consent flow—which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role. It could potentially mention reconnection or catalog connections, but the schema covers those.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions returnUrl and its role in the redirect, but this largely reiterates the schema description ('Where to send the user's browser after consent completes'). It does not add new meaning or clarify any parameters beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start an OAuth-based connection with a remote MCP server using Dynamic Client Registration.' It uses a specific verb ('start'), identifies the resource ('remote MCP server'), and mentions the key mechanism (DCR), which distinguishes it from siblings like startNativeOAuth or createConnection.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for OAuth-based connections with a remote MCP server. It explains the flow (returns authorization URL, user grants consent, Duvo creates connection) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, though exclusions are absent.

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

All Duvo MCP toolsInspect
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