Duvo MCP

Replace Revision Integration Queues

replaceRevisionIntegrationQueues

Idempotent

Replace the set of queues linked to this build's case-queue integration slot. Send the full desired queue list — any queues not in the list will be unlinked. Requires edit permission on the agent. After linking, call getRevisionCaseQueueSetup to confirm the slot now reports linked_queue_count > 0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent ID
`build_id`	Yes	Build ID
`queue_ids`	Yes	Full set of queue IDs to link to this slot. Replaces any existing links.
`integration_id`	Yes	Integration ID
`selected_automation_revision_id`	No	The 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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'any queues not in the list will be unlinked,' which goes beyond annotations. It also states the permission requirement. This is valuable context that complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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?

Three sentences pack the core purpose, usage rule, and verification step without redundancy. Each sentence earns its place, front-loading the main action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the operation's effect, the permission prerequisite, and a follow-up verification step. Given no output schema, this provides enough context for correct invocation without needing to consult external resources.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description only reinforces queue_ids semantics ('Send the full desired queue list'), which is already in the schema description. No significant new parameter-level meaning is added, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Replace the set of queues linked to this build's case-queue integration slot.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'replace' semantics distinguish it from sibling tools like attachRevisionIntegrations.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Requires edit permission on the agent' and instructs to 'call getRevisionCaseQueueSetup to confirm' after linking. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for incremental vs. full replacement, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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?