organizeClarityProcessLandscapeStart an asynchronous organization pass over the organization's unfiled processes, placing them into the Process Landscape where possible (organization admin+). Results appear progressively; started is false when there is nothing to organize.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | ||
| instructions | No | Deprecated: ignored. The organize pass takes no instructions. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous, results appear progressively, and the 'started' field is false when nothing to organize. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. However, it does not describe what happens to processes that cannot be placed or how to track the operation's completion.
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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the action, scope, and permission. The second adds critical behavioral details (async, progressive results, started flag). No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's asynchronous nature and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational behavior (async, progressive, started flag). It lacks details on the full return structure, error handling, or how to poll for completion, but these are reasonable gaps for a tool that likely returns a status object. The description is nearly complete for its complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description adds no extra meaning to the orgId parameter beyond the schema's format/pattern; it only implies a permission requirement. The instructions parameter is deprecated and ignored, so no value needed. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter-specific details, meeting the baseline for moderate coverage.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('organize' + 'Clarity Process Landscape') and clearly defines the scope: 'unfiled processes' placed into the landscape. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'generateClarityProcessLandscape' (which likely creates the landscape structure) and 'proposeClarityLandscapeProcess' (which proposes a single process) by specifying the bulk, asynchronous organization of unfiled items.
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 explicitly states the permission requirement ('organization admin+') and the asynchronous nature with progressive results. It implies the tool is used when there are unfiled processes to organize, but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tools (e.g., 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' for individual suggestions). The context is clear but lacks direct exclusion criteria.
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.