Duvo MCP

List Clarity Process Summaries

listClarityProcessSummaries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cross-process portfolio digest for every completed Clarity process on the team: per-process summary, SWOT, projected impact, and a step skeleton (role, system, and flow edges) — without step prose or source excerpts. Paginated (default 5, max 10). Use this to answer portfolio-wide questions in one pass; fetch a single process's full detail via getClarityProcessSnapshot only for the few that matter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Processes per page (1-10, default 5). Keeps the response under the MCP output cap.
`detail`	No	skeleton = + per-step role/system/flow edges (default); summary = summary+SWOT+impact only (cheaper, for pure ranking).	skeleton
`offset`	No	Processes to skip (default 0).
`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.
`include_current_steps`	No	Include the as-is (current) step skeleton too. Default false = proposed (to-be) steps only. Pass the literal string 'true' or 'false' (z.coerce.boolean treats any non-empty value, including 'false', as true).	false

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('every completed Clarity process'), what is excluded ('without step prose or source excerpts'), and pagination behavior (default 5, max 10). This provides useful, non-obvious operational detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then key attributes and usage guidance. No redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 provides enough context for a list tool with 5 parameters: it explains the output contents, pagination, and the distinction from a single-process detail tool. It doesn't describe the exact response structure but this is compensated by the schema's parameter explanations and the absence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the 'skeleton' output components (role, system, flow edges) and reaffirming pagination defaults, but these are largely covered by the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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's function: a 'cross-process portfolio digest' for completed Clarity processes, listing summaries, SWOT, projected impact, and step skeletons. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it excludes step prose/source excerpts and contrasts with getClarityProcessSnapshot for single-process detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use for portfolio-wide questions in one pass, and use getClarityProcessSnapshot only for the few processes that need full detail. This clearly delineates when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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?