Duvo MCP

Update Config Field

updateConfigField

Destructive

Set or clear a config field's value. value: null removes the answer and does not restore the module default, so a Run that reads the field is refused until it is answered again. To use the default, send default_value as value. On a running automation (running in readAutomationPolicy) the change reaches its Agents from their next run: name the question, its current answer and the new one, change it only after the user says yes, and pass the current answer you showed, not the new one, as expected_value so a change someone made in between is not overwritten. A compound question takes every part in one write. When the field's bindings include structural, the module's Agents also need a matching change; propose it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes
`fieldId`	Yes	Config field ID
`automationId`	Yes	Automation ID
`expected_value`	No	The current answer, as you read it and showed the user, not the new one (null if it was unanswered). If the answer has changed since, nothing is written and the call fails with 409; read the Policy again

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_value

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "$ref": "#/definitions/AutomationConfigJsonValue"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "The current answer, as you read it and showed the user, not the new one (null if it was unanswered). If the answer has changed since, nothing is written and the call fails with 409; read the Policy again"
+}

AddedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds far more: that a null removal does not restore the module default and causes reads to be refused, that changes propagate to Agents on their next run, and that a 409 occurs on stale `expected_value`. These are precisely the side effects an agent needs before calling.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and every following sentence covers a distinct constraint (null semantics, defaults, running-automation protocol, structural bindings). It is dense and long, but no sentence is filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, the confirmation workflow, the concurrency failure mode, and the structural-binding follow-up. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 75% and already documents `expected_value` and the IDs. The description adds real semantic value for `value` (null vs default_value vs compound-question single write) and reinforces the optimistic-concurrency meaning of `expected_value`, going beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Set or clear a config field's value') and the scope covers both write modes. It distinguishes this from siblings like addConfigField, updateConfigFieldDefinition, hideConfigField, and restoreConfigField by specifying this is the value-setting operation.

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 gives rich conditional guidance: use `value: null` to remove an answer, send `default_value` as `value` to restore the default, and follow a specific confirmation protocol on a running automation (name the question, get user consent, pass the shown answer as `expected_value`). It also names `readAutomationPolicy` as the source of policy state.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Duvo MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?