detachPulseDashboardConnectionDetach a connection (data source) from a Duvo Pulse dashboard (requires edit access).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifactId | Yes | ||
| connectionId | Yes |
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 declare the operation destructive and idempotent, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds the edit-access requirement and clarifies that 'connection' means 'data source', which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not state whether the underlying connection is also deleted or remains available to other dashboards, but the annotations cover the core destructive profile.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and target, then adds the permission caveat. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details.
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 simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations provide a reasonable baseline: action, target, permission, destructiveness, and idempotency. It is incomplete only in not explicitly linking parameters to their roles and not clarifying the fate of the connection after detach, which matters for a destructive tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it does not explicitly map artifactId to the dashboard or connectionId to the connection. The domain terms 'dashboard' and 'connection' hint at the roles, but the mapping is left to inference, which is risky for a two-UUID parameter API.
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 uses a specific verb ('Detach') with a specific resource ('a connection (data source)') and target ('Duvo Pulse dashboard'), clearly distinguishing it from related operations like attachPulseDashboardConnection and deleteConnection. Including the edit-access requirement adds further precision.
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 semantics of 'detach a connection from a dashboard' imply this is the tool for removing a dashboard's link to a data source rather than deleting the connection entirely. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as deleteConnection or attachPulseDashboardConnection, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.