Duvo MCP

Mark Notification Batch Read

markNotificationBatchRead

Idempotent

Mark every unread live member of a notification batch as read for the authenticated user. Pass types to narrow the mark-read to those member types, and severity (exact) or minSeverity (threshold, mutually exclusive with severity) to narrow it by urgency — e.g. the page's active filters; omit them to mark every live member. Narrowing matters when the batch card was rendered under a filter: the rows marked read should be the rows the card counted. Returns the count of members that were updated. Requires the Notification Center feature; returns 404 when it is not enabled for the team or the batch does not exist or belongs to another recipient/team.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The notification batch's unique identifier
`types`	No
`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
`minSeverity`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotation indicates readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description expands on this by specifying that only 'unread live members' are affected, returning the count of updated members, and detailing error conditions (404 when feature disabled, batch missing, or belonging to another). It adds scope and error behavior beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then progresses to parameter usage, return value, and requirements. It is moderately long but each sentence contributes necessary context, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all parameters, the return value, and error conditions. It omits a definition of 'live member' but that is likely a domain concept. The description is complete for the agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (id and team_id have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the semantic roles of types, severity, minSeverity, and their mutual exclusion, plus the behavior when omitted (mark all live members). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Mark every unread live member of a notification batch as read for the authenticated user.' It specifies the verb (mark), resource (notification batch), and scope (unread live members). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like markAllNotificationsRead or markNotificationRead; the distinction is implicit via 'batch' and 'live member' rather than explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use filtering parameters: 'Narrowing matters when the batch card was rendered under a filter: the rows marked read should be the rows the card counted.' It explains parameter usage (types, severity, minSeverity) and when to omit them, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of single-notification or global-mark 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?