listPulseDashboardVersionsList the version history of a Duvo Pulse dashboard, newest first (requires edit access). Use the version id with the restore and version-render endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifactId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds beyond that: it discloses the ordering ('newest first') and a permission requirement ('requires edit access'). It also gives a practical hint about using the version id with other endpoints, which is additional behavioral context.
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 is impressively concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence packs purpose, scope, ordering, and permission; the second adds actionable downstream guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential elements: purpose, ordering, permission, and next steps. There is no output schema, but the concept of 'version history' implies a list of versions. A slightly richer description of the return values (e.g., containing timestamps or version numbers) would make it a 5, but it is complete enough for confident invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter artifactId. The description does not explicitly explain that artifactId refers to the dashboard's ID, but the name and format (uuid) make it fairly obvious. Still, the description could have compensated more by stating 'provide the dashboard's artifactId', so it only partially relies on schema naming.
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: 'List the version history of a Duvo Pulse dashboard'. It identifies the specific resource (Duvo Pulse dashboard), the action (list), and a key differentiator ('newest first'). It also mentions using the version id with restore and version-render endpoints, which helps distinguish it from related version-handling tools.
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 provides useful context: it requires edit access, and it tells the agent to use the returned version id with restore and version-render endpoints. While it doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or compare it to every sibling, the context is sufficient for typical use cases and implies this is for browsing version history rather than modifying it.
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.