Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Start Native OAuth

startNativeOAuth

Start an OAuth-based connection with a native provider (Gmail, Google Sheets, Outlook, etc.). Returns an authorization URL that must be opened in a browser by a human end-user; once they grant consent, Duvo creates the matching connection and redirects the browser to the optional return_url (or the Duvo dashboard if none is provided). Poll /v2/teams/:team_id/connections to detect the new connection.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_idNoDuvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.
providerYesOAuth provider slug (e.g. 'google', 'gmail', 'googlesheets', 'outlook'). Must match a configured native OAuth provider.
return_urlNoWhere to send the user's browser after OAuth completes.
reconnect_instance_idNoWhen set, the OAuth flow will update the existing connection in place rather than creating a new one.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description reveals critical behavioral traits: the URL must be opened by a human end-user, the connection is only created after consent, and the browser redirects to return_url or dashboard. It also instructs polling to detect completion, which is not captured in the 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 core purpose, and every sentence adds actionable detail (human browser step, consent, polling). No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 complexity of an interactive OAuth flow and no output schema, the description covers the essential steps: return of authorization URL, human action required, and polling to detect the new connection. It lacks error scenarios and explicit response structure, but the core usage is well covered.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of return_url (redirects to dashboard if omitted) and the overall flow, though reconnect_instance_id is only covered in the schema. This extra context warrants a 4.

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: "Start an OAuth-based connection with a native provider" and lists examples (Gmail, Google Sheets, Outlook). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling connection tools by emphasizing the human-browser authorization flow, which is unique to this tool.

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?

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: for native OAuth providers requiring an interactive human consent step, and it explains the async flow (returns URL, poll connections). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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