Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Update Agent

updateAgent

Update an agent's display name or delivery settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew agent display name.
pinnedNoPin the agent to the top of your agents list (true) or unpin it (false). Per-user — each viewer has their own pin. A team on Automations has no agents list for a pin to order, so a pin or unpin there is refused with a 409.
agent_idYesThe agent's unique identifier
thread_idNoThread id to associate with the agent, or null to clear.
slack_enabledNoWhether the agent is reachable via Slack.
agentic_memory_enabledNoToggle agentic memory for the agent.
microsoft_teams_enabledNoWhether the agent is reachable via Microsoft Teams.
computer_use_vpn_config_idNo"direct" to durably pin direct internet (no VPN, immune to future team-default changes), a VPN config UUID to pin that network, or null to follow the team default.
computer_use_sandbox_template_idNo"standard" to durably pin the standard Duvo desktop (immune to future team-default changes), a template UUID to pin that desktop, or null to follow the team default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / pinned / description
      Previous value: -"Pin the agent to the top of your agents list (true) or unpin it (false). Per-user — each viewer has their own pin. On teams using Automations, pin state is read-only: the current pin is returned unchanged and no pin/unpin is applied."New value: +"Pin the agent to the top of your agents list (true) or unpin it (false). Per-user — each viewer has their own pin. A team on Automations has no agents list for a pin to order, so a pin or unpin there is refused with a 409."
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only indicate that the operation is not read-only and not destructive; no further safety signals are provided. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether the operation is a partial update, what permissions are required, or what error conditions exist beyond what the schema already documents. For a mutating tool with sparse annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no filler or redundant wording, making it easy to scan. The brevity sacrifices completeness, but conciseness itself is handled well and the key action and resource are front-loaded.

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?

This is a 9-parameter update tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, so the description needs to carry more orienting weight. It does not convey the breadth of settings that can be updated, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any side-effect/error context beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. The rich schema helps, but the description alone leaves an agent under-informed about the tool's full scope and behavior.

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 9 parameters in detail, including nuanced behavior for pinned, VPN config, and sandbox template. The description adds only a loose summary ('display name or delivery settings') that under-represents the full parameter set, but since the schema carries the semantic load, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a clear action, 'Update', a resource, 'agent', and a scope, 'display name or delivery settings', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like updateAgentCaseTrigger and updateAgentFolder. However, 'delivery settings' is somewhat vague and the description omits other updateable aspects such as pinned state, agentic memory, thread association, and computer-use network/desktop settings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createAgent, deleteAgent, duplicateAgent, or updateAgentCaseTrigger. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or direct the agent to a more appropriate sibling, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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