Duvo MCP

Create Team Invite

createTeamInvite

Invite one person to a team. Pass processId to invite them to a specific Clarity process instead of the whole team (that requires the team:clarity-member role). Creating the invitation does NOT email anyone — call sendTeamInviteEmail with the returned id to deliver it, or use bulkCreateTeamInvites, which creates and emails in one step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	Team role to grant. One of: team:owner, team:superadmin, team:admin (deprecated), team:manager, team:builder, team:member, team:clarity-member. You cannot grant a role above your own. Process invitations must use team:clarity-member.
`email`	Yes	Email address of the person to invite.
`team_id`	No	Duvo 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.
`processId`	No	Invite the person to this Clarity process rather than the whole team. Requires the team:clarity-member role.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With only generic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a critical behavior: creating the invitation does NOT email anyone, and it notes the role requirement for process invites. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it could also mention other side effects like the invitation status.

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 concise and well-structured: a lead sentence stating the primary action, followed by conditional usage details and side effects. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main use case, process-specific behavior, email side effect, and alternatives. It even hints at the return value ('with the returned id'), which is useful in the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal value. It does clarify the semantic difference between team-level and process-level invites via processId, but the schema already explains the role requirement and team_id fallback.

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's purpose: 'Invite one person to a team.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning bulkCreateTeamInvites and sendTeamInviteEmail, making the scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage guidance: use processId for process-specific invites (requiring team:clarity-member role), and explicitly states that this tool does not email, directing to sendTeamInviteEmail or bulkCreateTeamInvites for email delivery. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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?