Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update Config Field Definition

updateConfigFieldDefinition

Edit a Policy question: its label, question, section, whether it is required, and the options of a select field. A reworded question gets a new version, and a new section moves the field to that section's end. The type of a field added through the API can change while it has no answer; a field from the module template keeps its type. The answer is never changed, and a module template reinstall keeps the edit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoNew code, only for a field added to this automation that no Agent or Code step reads yet
typeNoNew value type, only for a field added through the API that has no answer yet
labelNoShort name for the field, shown as its row heading
rolesNoKeys of the process roles whose holders answer this question; replaces the whole list, and empty means anyone
columnsNoTable fields only, while the field has no answer; replaces the whole list
optionsNoSelect and multiSelect fields only; replaces the whole list
sectionNoSection to move the field to the end of, or null for none
field_idYesThe config field's unique identifier
questionNoNew question; a reworded question gets a new version
automation_idYesThe automation's unique identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / roles
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keys of the process roles whose holders answer this question; replaces the whole list, and empty means anyone",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 120,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 100,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "New code, only for a field added to this automation that no Agent or Code step reads yet",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9_]*$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / required
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Whether the field must be filled",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / columns
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Table fields only, while the field has no answer; replaces the whole list",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "freeText",
-  "identifier",
-  "number",
-  "select",
-  "multiSelect",
-  "list",
-  "orderedList",
-  "personList"
-]New value: +[
+  "freeText",
+  "identifier",
+  "number",
+  "select",
+  "multiSelect",
+  "list",
+  "orderedList",
+  "personList",
+  "table"
+]
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description goes well beyond that with non-obvious side effects: a reworded question produces a new version, a new section relocates the field to that section's end, the answer is never modified, and a module-template reinstall preserves the edit. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then each subsequent sentence carries a distinct behavioral rule (versioning, section placement, type constraints, answer immutability, reinstall persistence). It is dense but every clause earns its place; only the unnamed 'required' facet wastes a little attention.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky/non-obvious semantics well and the schema documents every parameter. It does not touch the key, roles, or columns parameters and gives no permission/auth context, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates a subset of parameters (label, question, section, options) without adding formatting or constraint detail beyond the schema, and it mentions a 'required' facet that has no corresponding property in the schema, which adds mild ambiguity rather than value.

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 (Edit) and resource (a Policy question / config field definition) and enumerates the editable facets: label, question, section, required flag, select options. It is clearly distinguishable from addConfigField / hideConfigField / restoreConfigField by the 'definition' framing, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with the sibling updateConfigField, so an agent must infer the split.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied ('Edit a Policy question') and some conditional rules are given (type may change only while a field has no answer; template fields keep their type), which is useful steering. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs updateConfigField / updateConfigFieldDefinition alternatives and no stated preconditions such as permissions.

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