Duvo MCP

Create Skill Revision

createSkillRevision

Idempotent

Open a draft revision of a skill, copying its files from the active revision (or from source_revision_id). Edit the draft with updateSkillRevisionFile, then activate it with promoteSkillRevision — the previously active revision stays intact and can be re-activated later. A skill has at most one open draft: if one already exists this returns it with created: false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skill_id`	Yes	Skill ID.
`source_revision_id`	No	Revision to fork the new draft from. Defaults to the live revision (or the skill's current files if there is no live revision yet).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description complements the annotations by explaining the idempotent behavior ('if one already exists this returns it with created: false') and the non-destructive nature ('previously active revision stays intact and can be re-activated later'). It also reveals the file-copying behavior from a default source, adding value beyond 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?

Two information-dense sentences with no filler; each clause adds a meaningful constraint or workflow step.

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?

The description explains the return behavior for the existing-draft case and outlines the full lifecycle, but it never explicitly states what the response contains for a newly created draft. Since there is no output schema, this implicit return value is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description rephrases source_revision_id's role ('copying its files... from source_revision_id') but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema's own explanation of the default behavior.

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 ('Open a draft revision of a skill') and clarifies the source of files ('copying its files from the active revision or source_revision_id'). It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like promoteSkillRevision and updateSkillRevision by outlining a complete workflow.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to modify a skill safely by creating a draft before promoting. It names the follow-up tools (updateSkillRevisionFile, promoteSkillRevision) and states the constraint that at most one draft can be open, but it doesn't explicitly state exclusions like 'use updateSkillFile to edit directly'.

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?