Duvo MCP

Create Clarity Artifact Import Upload Url

createClarityArtifactImportUploadUrl

Create a signed upload URL for importing a Miro export into a Clarity v2 process. Supports SVG, XML, PNG, and JPEG exports. The caller must upload the file to the returned URL, then complete the import.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_name`	Yes	Name of the Miro export file. Supported extensions: .svg, .xml, .png, .jpg, .jpeg
`process_id`	Yes	The clarity process id
`content_type`	Yes	MIME type of the Miro export file
`extra_capture_request_id`	No	Optional extra-capture-request id to bind this import to

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide basic boolean hints (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds significant behavioral context: the tool only creates a URL, does not perform the upload, and the import must be completed via a separate step. This clarifies the multi-step nature without contradicting the 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?

The description is three sentences with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists formats, and the third provides essential workflow instruction. Every sentence adds value, making it a model of conciseness.

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?

The description covers the workflow but lacks details about the return value structure (e.g., that the signed URL is a response field) and constraints like file size limits or URL expiration. Since there is no output schema, this omission is a gap. With strong schema coverage, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description repeats the supported formats already encoded in the file_name pattern and content_type enum but adds no additional meaning beyond schema details, such as parameter interdependencies or constraints.

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 creates a signed upload URL for importing a Miro export into a Clarity v2 process, listing supported file formats. This distinguishes it from sibling URL creators like createClarityDocumentUploadUrl and createClarityVideoUploadUrl, which serve different content 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (importing Miro exports) and outlines the mandatory follow-up steps (upload file, complete import). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is strong enough for an agent to make a correct selection.

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?