Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Create Agent Case Trigger

createAgentCaseTrigger

Create a case trigger for an agent. An agent may have at most one case trigger; this returns 409 if one already exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYesWhether the trigger is active. Disabled triggers do not dispatch runs.
agent_idYesThe agent's unique identifier
concurrencyNoConcurrency cap for the target queue. The cap is queue-wide, so this affects every Agent working the queue, not just this trigger. Only 1 (run cases one at a time) or null (reset the whole queue's cap to the platform default) can be set here; higher caps are configured per-queue via PATCH /v2/admin/case-queues/{queueId}/concurrency. Omit to leave the queue's current cap unchanged.
case_queue_idYesQueue whose new cases should trigger this agent

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the at-most-one invariant and the 409 conflict response. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate errors.

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 key action, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple create tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description covers the key unique behavior (409 conflict). It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema lessens the need. The main operational context is sufficiently conveyed.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, including details for concurrency, agent_id, case_queue_id, and enabled. The description does not repeat or enhance these parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Create a case trigger for an agent') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like createAgentSlackTrigger or updateAgentCaseTrigger. It also adds a unique constraint (at most one per agent), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when creating a case trigger) and hints at a precondition (agent must not already have a trigger) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like updateAgentCaseTrigger or previewAgentCaseTriggerConflicts. No explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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