Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Create File Upload Url

createFileUploadUrl

Generate a signed URL for uploading a file directly to GCS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_idNoDuvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.
fileNameYesName of the file to upload
contentTypeYesMIME type of the file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations by indicating that this generates a signed URL for direct GCS upload, implying the actual file transfer happens client-side. However, it does not disclose URL expiry, required permissions, or what happens after generation. Annotations are not contradicted.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Generate a signed URL' appears first, followed by the purpose qualifier 'for uploading a file directly to GCS,' and every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple and the schema fully documents all parameters, so the description is mostly adequate for invoking it. However, the large sibling set creates ambiguity about when this generic upload URL tool should be chosen over domain-specific ones, and the absence of an output schema leaves return-value details unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters fileName, contentType, and team_id are already fully documented in structured form. The description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'a file.'

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: generate a signed URL for uploading a file directly to GCS. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling create*UploadUrl tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like createCaseAttachmentUploadUrl, createClarityDocumentUploadUrl, or createSandboxUploadUrl. The description gives context but no explicit or implicit selection criteria beyond 'file directly to GCS.'

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