Duvo MCP

Duplicate Agent

duplicateAgent

Duplicate an existing agent into a new agent named "Copy of ", carrying over its configuration. Use the include_* flags in the (optional) body to control what is copied; all default on except memory. Requires the Lead Builder team role or above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	Yes	The ID of the agent to duplicate
`include_aop`	No	Copy the agent's operating procedure (AOP) and its handover targets. Defaults to true.
`include_queue`	No	Copy the assigned Queue. Defaults to true.
`include_memory`	No	Copy what the agent has learned so far (its Memory). Defaults to false. Memory can only be copied from the Duvo app — requesting it here returns an error.
`include_plugins`	No	Copy installed plugins. Defaults to true.
`include_connections`	No	Copy connected accounts (Connections) and their selected tools. Defaults to true.
`include_skills_files`	No	Copy attached Skills and Files. Defaults to true.
`include_logins_secrets`	No	Copy saved Logins and Secrets. Defaults to true.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the naming convention, default behavior of include_* flags, the Lead Builder role requirement, and the special restriction that memory can only be copied from the Duvo app. This is valuable behavioral context that is not visible in annotations or schema alone.

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?

Three sentences cover the core action, naming behavior, parameter defaults, and permission requirement with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what happens, what is copied by default, the key memory caveat, and the required role. No critical operational detail appears to be missing.

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%, and each parameter already documents its default and meaning. The description adds a useful aggregate summary ('all default on except memory') and notes the optional body, but does not provide significant per-parameter information beyond the schema.

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 states a precise operation — duplicating an existing agent into a new agent named 'Copy of <name>' — with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from createAgent, updateAgent, and deleteAgent in the sibling list.

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 gives clear context: you duplicate an existing agent and control what is copied via include_* flags. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the meaning is unambiguous from the action and resource.

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?