Duvo MCP

Invite Org Member

inviteOrgMember

Invite a person to an organization you administer, optionally assigning them to a team in that organization. Requires an organization Admin, Executive, or Owner role. You cannot grant a role higher than your own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`orgId`	Yes	Organization ID
`teamId`	No
`sendEmail`	No	Email the invitation to the recipient. `false` always suppresses the email. When omitted, the legacy opt-in applies instead: the email is sent only if the deprecated `frontendUrl` is present. Omit both to create the invitation without notifying anyone.
`frontendUrl`	No	Deprecated. Use `sendEmail` instead. Kept because its presence is the legacy opt-in for sending the invitation email; the value never sets the link host, which is always the server's configured frontend URL.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, not destructive), the description discloses auth requirements (Admin/Executive/Owner) and an important limitation (cannot grant a role higher than own). This adds meaningful behavioral context 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 deliver the purpose and key constraints with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the core action.

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 description covers the essential purpose, permissions, and limitation, and the schema fills in parameter details. It lacks explicit mention of the invitation workflow or return value, but those are not required given no output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the optional team assignment (teamId) and the role constraints for 'role'. The remaining params (orgId, email) are self-explanatory by name, and schema covers sendEmail/frontendUrl details.

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 invites a person to an organization administered by the user, with optional team assignment, distinguishing it from bulk invite or team invite link tools. The verb 'invite' and resource 'person to organization' are specific.

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?

The description provides context about required roles and the constraint of not granting a higher role than the user, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools like bulkCreateTeamInvites or createTeamInviteLink. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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?