Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Remove Revision Integration

removeRevisionIntegration
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an integration from an agent revision. Removes the slot for everyone on the revision, including all per-user connection pins. Requires edit permission on the agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesAgent ID
build_idYesBuild ID
integration_idYesIntegration ID (catalog integration ID or slot ID from the list response)
selected_automation_revision_idNoThe automation revision this edit is being made at. Pass a draft and the edit is folded into that draft itself; pass the active revision and the edit lands on a draft branched from it. A historic revision is rejected — it cannot be activated from without an explicit rebase. A revision belonging to a different automation is ignored, and the edit targets the automation the addressed agent belongs to. Omit to target the automation's active revision.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what gets removed: 'the slot for everyone on the revision, including all per-user connection pins.' It also states the permission requirement, which goes beyond annotation data. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences long, immediately states the action, then provides the key consequences and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is removed, scope (for everyone, including pins), and permission requirement. It could mention reversibility or error conditions, but the core behavior is clearly and sufficiently described for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all parameters (agent_id, build_id, integration_id, selected_automation_revision_id) with descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an integration from an agent revision.' It further clarifies the scope by stating it 'Removes the slot for everyone on the revision, including all per-user connection pins,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like unpinRevisionIntegrationConnection that target individual pins.

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 description mentions a prerequisite ('Requires edit permission on the agent') which is useful, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The behavioral note about removing 'for everyone' implies a contrast with per-user actions but does not explicitly guide the agent to choose this over unpin or detach variants.

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