getAgentCaseTriggerRetrieve a single case trigger by id.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-state safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'retrieve a single... by id', such as whether a missing trigger yields a 404 or whether the agent_id is scoped to the caller's organization. With no contradiction and no additional disclosure burden, a 3 reflects that the description is adequate but adds minimal behavioral value over annotations.
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, short sentence that conveys the essential operation without any filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb, and every word earns its place. There is no reason to expand it further.
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 read-by-id tool with two required UUID parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description plus schema and annotations are nearly complete. The only minor gap is that the tool does not have an output schema, and the description does not state what the returned trigger object looks like or whether it includes nested fields, so an agent must infer the return shape.
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 100%: both agent_id and trigger_id have UUID format and pattern constraints plus descriptive text ('The agent's unique identifier', 'The case trigger's unique identifier'). The description itself references 'by id', which aligns with the trigger_id parameter. Since the schema fully documents both parameters, the description does not need to add more; the naming and formats make the semantics unambiguous.
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 'Retrieve a single case trigger by id' clearly identifies the verb (retrieve), resource (case trigger), and lookup key (id). It stands apart from CRUD siblings like createAgentCaseTrigger, updateAgentCaseTrigger, and deleteAgentCaseTrigger, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from listAgentCaseTriggers or listAgentTriggers, so it loses a point for not naming those alternatives.
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 description implies a read-only lookup use case, and annotations confirm it is idempotent and non-destructive. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over listAgentCaseTriggers (e.g., when you need a single trigger rather than all triggers for an agent), nor does it mention that agent_id and trigger_id are both required. The usage context is reasonable but not spelled out.
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.