getCaseAttachmentDownloadUrlMint a short-lived signed URL for one case attachment. disposition=inline serves the file for the in-app viewer; attachment forces a download.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | The case's unique identifier | |
| queue_id | Yes | The queue's unique identifier | |
| disposition | No | attachment | |
| attachment_id | Yes | The attachment's unique identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals the URL is short-lived and signed, plus how disposition changes server behavior (inline viewer vs download). This is valuable context that the annotations do not capture, though it omits details like expiration duration or auth requirements.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a compact but complete explanation of the disposition parameter. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or unnecessary detail.
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?
The core return value is clear from the description ('short-lived signed URL'), and annotations confirm the operation is safe and non-mutating. It doesn't specify the URL format or exact expiry duration, but for a simple URL-minting tool these are minor gaps; no output schema exists to compensate.
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?
The schema lacks a description for disposition, and the description fills that gap by defining the inline and attachment behaviors. For the three required IDs, the schema already provides basic descriptions, so the description doesn't need to repeat them, though it also doesn't explain queue_id's specific role.
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 states a concrete action ('Mint') against a distinct resource ('short-lived signed URL for one case attachment'), and the disposition explanation clarifies the exact behavior. This differentiates it from siblings like listCaseAttachments or createCaseAttachmentUploadUrl without needing to open their schemas.
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 the use case—downloading a single case attachment—but never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over related tools like getFileDownloadUrl or getPulseDashboardAttachmentDownloadUrl. There are no exclusion statements or alternative routing instructions, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.
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.