Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Move Agent

moveAgent

Move an agent (and its connected workspace) to a different team. Pass dry_run=true to preview the closure without applying changes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNoWhen true, preview the closure and warnings without applying any changes.
agent_idYesThe ID of the agent to move.
target_team_idYesThe ID of the team to move the agent into.
bypass_standalone_gateNoWhen true, move the agent together with every connected queue, trigger, and handover peer instead of rejecting a non-standalone agent. Defaults to false.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) provide little safety context, so the description carries the burden. It mentions moving the connected workspace and previewing 'closure' but doesn't explain what closure does, side effects, or that it may reject non-standalone agents unless bypass_standalone_gate is set. Some behavioral info exists but is incomplete.

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?

The description is two concise sentences. It front-loads the primary action and then provides the crucial dry_run preview note. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the dry_run option, but leaves gaps: what 'closure' means, the standalone gate behavior, and the full scope of consequences. The param descriptions partially compensate, but the main description doesn't provide complete operational context.

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 schema fully documents dry_run, agent_id, target_team_id, and bypass_standalone_gate. The description only adds context about the connected workspace, which isn't a parameter-level nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move'), resource ('an agent'), and target ('to a different team'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like moveAgentsToFolder (which moves agents to a folder) and movePulseDashboard. It also adds scope ('and its connected workspace') which uniquely identifies this tool.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (moving an agent to another team) and explicitly instructs to pass dry_run=true to preview closure without applying changes. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Duvo MCP toolsInspect
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