createClarityOrganizationDocumentUploadUrlCreate a signed URL for uploading a PDF, TXT, Markdown, or BPMN document as an organization-level Clarity capture
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | ||
| fileName | Yes | Name of the document file | |
| contentType | Yes | MIME type of the document |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it creates a signed URL (not the actual upload), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it fails to disclose URL expiration, authentication requirements, or the need for a subsequent completion step. Annotations are neutral and not contradictory, but the description does not sufficiently inform the agent about side effects or prerequisites.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. All essential elements (verb, resource, file types, scope) are included without repetition.
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?
The description omits the workflow context: after obtaining the signed URL, the agent must upload the file and then call completeClarityOrganizationDocumentUpload. No output schema is provided, and the description does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., URL, fields). For a tool that creates a pre-upload resource, this is a significant gap.
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 67% (orgId lacks description). The description adds value by mapping file types (PDF, TXT, Markdown, BPMN) to MIME types in the contentType enum, though BPMN maps to application/xml which may be unclear. The fileName and orgId parameters receive no additional semantic explanation beyond what the schema provides. Overall, moderate added value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool creates a signed URL for uploading documents (PDF, TXT, Markdown, BPMN) at the organization level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like createClarityDocumentUploadUrl (likely user-level) and createClarityTeamDocumentUploadUrl (team-level) through the explicit 'organization-level' scope.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., createClarityDocumentUploadUrl for personal uploads, or the completion step completeClarityOrganizationDocumentUpload). The description implies organization-level context but does not provide rules for selection or prerequisites.
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.