Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Complete Clarity Artifact Import

completeClarityArtifactImport

Complete a Miro artifact import after uploading to the signed URL. The uploaded bytes are validated before the import becomes a usable Clarity capture.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_nameYesName of the Miro export file. Supported extensions: .svg, .xml, .png, .jpg, .jpeg
capture_idYesThe pending capture id returned by the upload-url endpoint
process_idYesThe clarity process id
content_typeYesMIME type of the uploaded Miro export file

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and no idempotent/destructive hints. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'The uploaded bytes are validated before the import becomes a usable Clarity capture', disclosing validation behavior and the state change from pending to usable. No contradiction with annotations.

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: the first states the purpose and prerequisite; the second adds a key behavioral detail (validation). Every sentence provides essential information with zero waste.

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 has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, validation behavior, and the outcome ('usable Clarity capture'). It could optionally mention return values or error handling, but the provided context is sufficient for correct use.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description (file_name with pattern, capture_id/process_id as uuids, content_type as enum). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'completes a Miro artifact import after uploading to the signed URL', combining a specific verb ('complete') and resource ('Miro artifact import'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like completeClarityDocumentUpload, completeClarityVideoUpload, etc., which handle different file types.

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 explicitly specifies the prerequisite: 'after uploading to the signed URL', which guides the agent to call this only after the upload step (likely via createClarityArtifactImportUploadUrl). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sequential context is clear and sufficient for correct invocation.

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