Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update Case

updateCase

Edit a case's title and/or its data payload. Provide at least one field. For the payload, send free-form data OR a structured json_data object, never both. json_data is validated against the queue's Case schema and requires the queue to have one; a case that is already typed against a schema keeps its structured payload and rejects a free-text data write. Works on pending, in-progress, and settled cases. Other attributes (status, priority, labels) have their own dedicated endpoints. Returns the updated case with its event history and approval batches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoNew free-form data payload handed to the agent when the case is claimed. Mutually exclusive with `json_data`.
titleNoNew case title (1–500 characters).
case_idYesThe case's unique identifier
json_dataNoNew structured payload for a case on a queue that has a Case schema. Validated against that schema and mutually exclusive with `data`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / data / description
      Previous value: -"New free-form data payload handed to the agent when the case is claimed."New value: +"New free-form data payload handed to the agent when the case is claimed. Mutually exclusive with `json_data`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / json_data
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "New structured payload for a case on a queue that has a Case schema. Validated against that schema and mutually exclusive with `data`.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it thoroughly: it discloses validation against a queue schema, rejection of free-text on already-typed cases, allowed case state, and the return value (updated case with event history and approval batches). This goes well beyond what any annotation or JSON-level flag implies and contains no contradiction.

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?

The description is concise despite having high informational density. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers preconditions, edge cases, and return value in a natural sequence. Every sentence earns its place and there is minimal redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains required input(s), the conditional logic, what output to expect, and how it relates to other case mutation endpoints. An agent can decide when to call this tool and what the outcome will be without needing extra external context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the input schema covers all four parameters, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the requirement to pass at least one field, the rule never to send both data and json_data, and the behavioral differences when a typed case rejects free-text data. These are not reachable from the schema alone, so this description is indispensable.

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 action: 'Edit a case's title and/or its data payload,' naming the exact resource and fields. It then distinguishes itself from other attributes by stating those have dedicated endpoints, which makes it clear why this tool is used and not bulkUpdateCaseStatus or assignCaseLabels.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Provide at least one field') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Other attributes (status, priority, labels) have their own dedicated endpoints'). It also gives a hard condition for json_data usage (queue must have a Case schema) and the mutual-exclusion rule, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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