unpinRevisionIntegrationConnectionUnpin one of your connections from this build's integration slot. The connection itself is not deleted; only the binding to this slot is removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID | |
| build_id | Yes | Build ID | |
| connection_id | Yes | Connection ID to unpin | |
| integration_id | Yes | Integration ID (catalog integration ID or slot ID from the list response) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the connection itself is not deleted, clarifying what the destructiveHint=true annotation actually destroys (the binding). This is valuable non-obvious information that helps the agent understand side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Unpin') and immediately clarifies a key nuance (connection not deleted). No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple unpin operation with four clearly described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and side effects. It could mention potential error cases (e.g., if connection is not currently pinned), but it is generally complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (agent_id, build_id, integration_id, connection_id) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Unpin' with a clear resource ('one of your connections from this build's integration slot'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pinRevisionIntegrationConnection by describing the opposite action. It also clarifies the scope by explicitly stating the connection is not deleted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (unpinning from an integration slot) and clarifies the effect (only binding removed), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pinRevisionIntegrationConnection or removeRevisionIntegration. No direct when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.