Duvo MCP

Send Pulse Dashboard Message

sendPulseDashboardMessage

Send an instruction to iterate on a Duvo Pulse dashboard (e.g. 'make it a bar chart', 'filter to last 14 days'). The creator can always iterate; teammates can too when the Pulse is published to the team with edit access. The agent regenerates asynchronously — poll GET /artifacts/{artifactId} for status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes
`artifactId`	Yes
`attachments`	No	Attachments to hand the agent, uploaded beforehand via the upload-urls endpoint (max 5)
`from_revision_id`	No
`selected_element`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are generic. The description adds critical behavioral details: the operation is asynchronous, requires polling GET /artifacts/{artifactId} for status, and has access control implications. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and example, followed by usage constraints and async behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the async behavior and access rules are covered, the tool has 5 parameters (including a complex nested object) with no output schema and low schema coverage. The description omits critical parameter semantics (e.g., what artifactId represents, purpose of from_revision_id and selected_element) and does not outline error scenarios or return values. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning of artifactId (beyond its use in polling), from_revision_id, or selected_element. Only the message parameter gets an example via the description's sample instruction. The nested selected_element object is completely undocumented, leaving the agent guessing.

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 sends an instruction to iterate on a Duvo Pulse dashboard, with concrete examples ('make it a bar chart', 'filter to last 14 days'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like answerPulseDashboardQuestion by focusing on iterative changes rather than Q&A.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: creator can always iterate, teammates only when the Pulse is published to the team with edit access. This gives clear eligibility criteria and implies when not to use (no edit access). It also notes asynchronous regeneration and polling, guiding the agent on follow-up behavior.

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?