Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose Clarity Landscape Process

proposeClarityLandscapeProcess

Create a manual process in the organization's Process Landscape, either as an unassigned proposal or atomically assigned to an eligible team.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
orgIdYes
teamIdNo
parentIdNo
descriptionNoOne short paragraph (1-3 sentences) saying why this process belongs in the landscape. Use only what you saw in the captures. Say what the process is (don't just repeat the name), show proof it really happens, and name where you heard it - be as specific as the captures allow, like "a warehouse lead said so in their interview" or "it came up in two returns recordings". Use only facts from the captures: never make up sources, people, dates, quotes, or numbers, and don't stretch what was said. If you have no real proof the process happens, don't propose it.
materializationModeNoUse "proposal" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. Chat-scoped callers may only propose for their pinned team; every caller needs Manager-or-above authority for that team. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. Defaults to "auto", which materializes a real process when `teamId` is set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / materializationMode / description
      Previous value: -"Use \"proposal\" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. Chat-scoped discovery agents may use proposal mode for their pinned team; direct human and API callers require Manager-or-above authority for that team. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. Defaults to \"auto\", which materializes a real process when `teamId` is set — except in a landscape-onboarding chat, which may only propose, and so defaults to \"proposal\"."New value: +"Use \"proposal\" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. Chat-scoped callers may only propose for their pinned team; every caller needs Manager-or-above authority for that team. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. Defaults to \"auto\", which materializes a real process when `teamId` is set."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / materializationMode / description
      Previous value: -"Use \"proposal\" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. Defaults to \"auto\", which materializes a real process when `teamId` is set — except in a landscape-onboarding chat, which may only propose, and so defaults to \"proposal\"."New value: +"Use \"proposal\" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. Chat-scoped discovery agents may use proposal mode for their pinned team; direct human and API callers require Manager-or-above authority for that team. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. Defaults to \"auto\", which materializes a real process when `teamId` is set — except in a landscape-onboarding chat, which may only propose, and so defaults to \"proposal\"."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / materializationMode / default
      Removed value: -"auto"
    • changedInput schema / properties / materializationMode / description
      Previous value: -"Use \"proposal\" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. The default \"auto\" materializes a real process when `teamId` is set."New value: +"Use \"proposal\" to record a process the organization plausibly needs, owned by `teamId` for review, WITHOUT creating a real process record. `teamId` is then required. A proposal is idempotent: an equivalent live proposal under the same parent is returned untouched rather than duplicated. Defaults to \"auto\", which materializes a real process when `teamId` is set — except in a landscape-onboarding chat, which may only propose, and so defaults to \"proposal\"."
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds one real behavioral trait beyond them: the assignment happens 'atomically', meaning the process and team binding are created together or not at all. It does not mention permission requirements, validation/naming rules, or what a proposal record looks like versus a real process.

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?

A single tightly-wrapped sentence with no filler and the primary action front-loaded. It is efficient, though it spends its only clause on mode enumeration rather than on disambiguation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description is thin: it omits permissions, idempotency of proposals, hierarchy placement via parentId, and what is returned. Most of the operative detail sits in one parameter's schema text rather than in the tool description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%: orgId, teamId, parentId and name are bare UUID/string fields. The description names no parameters and does not explain the teamId/parentId relationship or that teamId is required for proposal mode, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus a specific resource ('manual process in the organization's Process Landscape') and the two creation modes. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings createClarityProcess, createClarityLandscapeNode, or fileSuggestedClarityProcesses, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'either as an unassigned proposal or atomically assigned to an eligible team' implies the two usage modes, and the authority/pinning rules live in the materializationMode schema description rather than here. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over createClarityProcess, and no prerequisites or when-not guidance in the description itself.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources