Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Generate Revision

generateRevision

Generate agent instructions or code into a saved draft. Poll the returned builder run, answer questions if requested, then accept or decline the reviewed checkpoint. This never activates the revision.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYesInstructions for generating or refining this agent or code step.
run_idNoOptional run ID for context
build_idYesSource revision to generate or refine.
process_idNoOptional process ID for context
conversationNoOptional voice conversation transcript
draft_file_idNoTemporary source file for this AOP draft. It is not kept on the Agent.
insight_indexNoOptional insight index for context
draft_file_idsNoTemporary source files for this AOP draft, in attachment order. They are not kept on the Agent.
previous_build_idNoPrevious build ID for sandbox reuse
selected_automation_revision_idNoThe automation revision this edit is being made at. Pass a draft and the edit is folded into that draft itself; pass the active revision and the edit lands on a draft branched from it. A historic revision is rejected — it cannot be activated from without an explicit rebase. A revision belonging to a different automation is ignored, and the edit targets the automation the addressed agent belongs to. Omit to target the automation's active revision.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / draft_file_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Temporary source file for this AOP draft. It is not kept on the Agent.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / draft_file_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Temporary source files for this AOP draft, in attachment order. They are not kept on the Agent.",
+  "items": {
+    "format": "uuid",
+    "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds real behavioral context: generation is asynchronous via a returned builder run, it involves a reviewed checkpoint, and it 'never activates the revision.' It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but it meaningfully extends the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: purpose, then workflow, then the key non-activation constraint, all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'answer questions if requested' is slightly terse about who is asking.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully explains the return behavior (poll the builder run, review checkpoint) and the non-activation guarantee. Remaining parameter depth is fully carried by the 100%-coverage schema, so it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Generate agent instructions or code into a saved draft.' This clearly conveys what is produced. It doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like createRevision or acceptRevisionGeneration, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It describes the post-call workflow (poll the builder run, answer questions, accept/decline the checkpoint), which implies usage. But it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as createRevision or updateRevision, leaving selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Duvo MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources