Duvo MCP

Create Team Invite Link

createTeamInviteLink

Create or regenerate the team's shareable invite link — the one URL anyone can use to join the team. Regenerating invalidates the previous link, so anyone still holding the old URL can no longer join. Requires the Manager role or above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.
`frontendUrl`	No	Deprecated and ignored. The link is built from the server's configured frontend URL so a caller can't choose the host in a Duvo-branded email.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Regenerating invalidates the previous link, so anyone still holding the old URL can no longer join,' which is a destructive side effect on the prior link. This directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false, which implies no destructive behavior. Per rubric, a contradiction warrants a score of 1 and an annotation_contradiction flag.

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 three sentences: each earns its place. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the invalidation side effect and the role requirement—no fluff or repetition.

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 covers the key behavioral nuance (invalidation of previous link) and permission requirement. However, with no output schema, it omits mention of what the tool returns (presumably the new link URL), which is a minor gap for a creation/regeneration tool.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both team_id (optional, pinned to API key team vs OAuth multi-team) and frontendUrl (deprecated, ignored). The tool description adds no parameter-specific insight, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Create or regenerate the team's shareable invite link — the one URL anyone can use to join the team.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like createTeamInvite (individual invites) and getTeamInviteLink (retrieval).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool through 'the one URL anyone can use to join the team', differentiating it from individual invite tools, and notes the Manager role prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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?