Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Start Native OAuth

startNativeOAuth

Start an OAuth-based connection with a native provider (Gmail, Google Sheets, Outlook, etc.). The provider path parameter is the native OAuth provider key from listIntegrations, not the integration type. 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

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.
providerYesNative OAuth provider key, not the integration type. Use oauth_provider_key from listIntegrations (for example, google_gmail for integration type gmail, google_sheets for googlesheets, or microsoft_outlook for outlook); passing an integration type returns 404 "Unknown 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Previous value: -"OAuth provider slug (e.g. 'google', 'gmail', 'googlesheets', 'outlook'). Must match a configured native OAuth provider."New value: +"Native OAuth provider key, not the integration type. Use oauth_provider_key from listIntegrations (for example, google_gmail for integration type gmail, google_sheets for googlesheets, or microsoft_outlook for outlook); passing an integration type returns 404 \"Unknown OAuth provider\"."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing the full side-effect chain: an authorization URL is returned, a human must grant consent in a browser, Duvo then creates the matching connection, and the browser is redirected to return_url or the Duvo dashboard. It also discloses the post-consent polling step, which is essential behavioral context for an openWorld, non-idempotent operation.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then walks through the flow in a compact, information-dense paragraph. Sentences are long but each carries a distinct fact; no filler remains, though the flow description could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what is returned (an authorization URL), what the human must do with it, what side effect occurs on consent, and how to detect completion via polling. That fully covers what an agent needs to invoke and follow up on this tool.

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 four parameters, including the provider-key-vs-integration-type distinction and the 404 consequence. The description restates the provider guidance rather than adding new semantics, and never mentions reconnect_instance_id, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Start an OAuth-based connection with a native provider") and gives concrete examples (Gmail, Google Sheets, Outlook). The word "native" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling MCP-OAuth flow (authorizeMcpOAuth/checkMcpOAuth), but no sibling is named outright, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the provider key comes from listIntegrations, the returned authorization URL must be opened by a human, and the caller should poll the connections endpoint afterward. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over authorizeMcpOAuth or createConnection, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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