Duvo MCP

Get Notification Counts

getNotificationCounts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Per-type notification counts for the authenticated user's current team. Narrow with unread, and with either severity (counts only that exact severity) or minSeverity (counts that urgency and above) — the two are mutually exclusive and a request carrying both is rejected with 400. Pass the same filters the feed is showing, so the counts describe the list the reader would land on. Requires the Notification Center feature; returns 404 when it is not enabled for the team.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agents`	No	When 'mine', only count notifications for agents the authenticated user created (plus connection_broken, which is always counted), so the counts match a feed filtered the same way.
`unread`	No	If true, only count unread notifications.
`team_id`	No	Duvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.
`severity`	No	Only count notifications with exactly this severity, so the counts match a feed filtered the same way. Mutually exclusive with minSeverity.
`minSeverity`	No	Only count notifications at or above this urgency, so the counts match a feed filtered the same way. Least to most urgent: success < info < warning < critical. Mutually exclusive with severity.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: mutual exclusivity of severity and minSeverity, 400 rejection for both, 404 when Notification Center is disabled, and the requirement to match feed filters. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose first, then filter behavior, then feature requirement. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description explains the core behavior, error cases, and filter alignment. It doesn't clarify what 'type' means (e.g., severity levels vs notification categories), but the schema and context make it reasonably 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?

All parameters have rich descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity but adds minimal new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool returns per-type notification counts for the authenticated user's current team, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling notification tools by focusing on counts, not feed items or individual notifications.

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 explains when to use the tool and how to align filters with the feed, including the mutually exclusive severity/minSeverity options. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like getUnreadNotificationCount, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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?