Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Update Queue Json Schema Settings

updateQueueJsonSchemaSettings

Turn a queue's schema guard on or off, and freeze or unfreeze the schema document. A guarded queue with no schema yet asks its producing agent to declare one; a frozen schema refuses every change until it is unfrozen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frozenNoClose the schema document to change. The queue must already have a schema.
guardedNoRequire every new case on this queue to be typed. When on and the queue has no schema yet, the producing agent must declare one before it can add cases.
queue_idYesThe queue's unique identifier

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations establish readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the mutation is already known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: a guarded queue with no schema requires the producing agent to declare one, and a frozen schema rejects all changes until unfrozen. This explains the state transitions the call triggers.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The follow-up sentence clarifies the two key states in parallel. Every clause contributes.

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 two-boolean mutation tool with well-described parameters and annotations, the description covers the core semantics and state effects. It does not mention return values or the relationship to replaceQueueJsonSchema, but these are not required for correct invocation. Slight gap in usage guidance keeps this below a 5.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mostly paraphrases the guarded and frozen parameter descriptions, adding only the phrasing 'asks its producing agent to declare one' and 'refuses every change until it is unfrozen.' It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clear verb phrase 'Turn a queue's schema guard on or off' and 'freeze or unfreeze the schema document,' identifying both the resource and the two toggles. This distinguishes it from schema-content operations like replaceQueueJsonSchema and attachQueueJsonSchema.

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?

The description implies the tool is for changing guard/frozen settings but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over related tools such as replaceQueueJsonSchema or attachQueueJsonSchema. There are no stated exclusions or alternative conditions. Usage is left to inference from the tool name and siblings.

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