deleteAgentCaseTriggerDelete a case trigger. Only the trigger creator or a builder/admin can delete it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent's unique identifier | |
| trigger_id | Yes | The case trigger's unique identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation destructive and non-read-only; the description adds the authorization requirement, which annotations do not convey. No contradiction with idempotentHint is present.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action; the permission note is the only additional information. No filler or 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?
For a two-parameter delete with safety annotations already provided, the description covers the essential action and authorization context. It doesn't explicitly mention the agent-trigger ownership relationship, but that is strongly implied by the tool name and schema.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema with UUID formats and meanings, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, matching the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
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 opens with a direct verb and object ('Delete a case trigger'), stating exactly what the tool does. The phrase 'case trigger' distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools such as deleteSlackTrigger, and the permission clause further narrows the operation's 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?
The authorization constraint ('Only the trigger creator or a builder/admin can delete it') gives an agent clear context on when invocation is permitted. It does not name alternatives like updateAgentCaseTrigger, but for a delete tool this is sufficient context.
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.