getPulseDashboardAttachmentDownloadUrlMint a short-lived presigned URL to download or preview a file attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message. Returns 404 once the dashboard's sandbox has expired and the file is gone (about 12 hours).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifactId | Yes | ||
| attachmentId | Yes | The attachment to mint a download URL for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the URL is short-lived, and it returns 404 after the sandbox expires (~12 hours). This discloses failure behavior and time limits, which is valuable for an agent.
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 consists of two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a single behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no repetition of schema or annotation details. It is appropriately concise.
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-only URL-minting tool with good annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, the return type (URL), and a key error condition (404 after expiry). It does not clarify the meaning of artifactId, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.
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 documentation covers only attachmentId (50% of parameters); artifactId lacks a description in both schema and tool description. The description's phrase 'attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message' hints that artifactId may refer to the dashboard/message, but it does not explicitly define it. This leaves a gap in parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Mint a short-lived presigned URL to download or preview a file attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message.' It uses a specific verb ('mint'), identifies the resource (short-lived presigned URL), and differentiates from siblings like getFileDownloadUrl and createPulseDashboardAttachmentUploadUrl by scoping to Pulse dashboard message attachments.
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 when to use this tool (when needing to download or preview a Pulse dashboard message attachment) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The 'short-lived' and 'attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message' context provides clear usage context, though it stops short of comparative guidance.
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.