createClarityDocumentUploadUrlCreate a signed URL for uploading a PDF, TXT, Markdown, BPMN, XLSX, or CSV document directly to GCS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The clarity process ID | |
| fileName | Yes | Name of the document file | |
| contentType | Yes | MIME type of the document | |
| extraCaptureRequestId | No | Extra-capture-request id to bind this capture to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / contentType / enumPrevious value: -[
- "application/pdf",
- "text/plain",
- "text/markdown",
- "application/xml"
-]New value: +[
+ "application/pdf",
+ "text/plain",
+ "text/markdown",
+ "application/xml",
+ "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet",
+ "text/csv",
+ "application/vnd.ms-excel"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about direct GCS upload and supported file types, but it does not disclose the full upload flow or side effects beyond signed URL creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, supported formats, and destination while leaving schema details to the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a straightforward signed-URL generation tool, and the lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by the description implying the returned artifact is a URL. However, it omits the relationship to the completion step and does not distinguish this endpoint from several closely related upload-URL siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and parameter descriptions already provide clear meanings for id, fileName, contentType, and extraCaptureRequestId. The description reinforces the document-upload purpose but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action (create a signed URL) and resource (Clarity document upload to GCS), and lists the supported formats. It distinguishes from image/video upload tools via the format list, but does not differentiate among closely related document-upload siblings such as organization, team, or artifact uploads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling upload tools like createClarityOrganizationDocumentUploadUrl or createClarityTeamDocumentUploadUrl. It also does not mention follow-up steps such as completing the upload after GCS transfer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.