Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Update Revision

updateRevision

Update a revision's configuration, name, description, or handover targets. Returns the updated revision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configNoBuild configuration object
build_idYesThe build's unique identifier
revision_nameNoOptional user-defined name for this revision. Pass null to clear.
handoverTargetIdsNoAgent IDs that this agent can hand over work to
revision_descriptionNoOptional user-defined description for this revision. Pass null to clear.
selected_automation_revision_idNoThe automation revision this edit is being made at. Pass a draft and the edit is folded into that draft itself; pass the active revision and the edit lands on a draft branched from it. A historic revision is rejected — it cannot be activated from without an explicit rebase. A revision belonging to a different automation is ignored, and the edit targets the automation the addressed agent belongs to. Omit to target the automation's active revision.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description need not restate that. It adds the fact that the updated revision is returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior around the selected_automation_revision_id semantics or potential errors; these are left to the schema parameter description.

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 two sentences, with the core action and fields front-loaded. The additional sentence about return value is necessary and concise. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with a nested config object and a nuanced selected_automation_revision_id behavior, but the schema's parameter descriptions cover the semantics thoroughly. The description provides a high-level action and return type, which is sufficient for invocation. It could mention differentiation from related revision tools (create/promote) for full completeness, but overall it's fairly complete given the schema.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description recaps four of them (configuration, name, description, handover targets) but adds no new details beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory weight.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'revision', and enumerates specific configurable aspects (configuration, name, description, handover targets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createRevision, getRevision, and promoteRevision.

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 this tool is used when modifying an existing revision, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus createRevision or promoteRevision, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The 'update' verb provides general context, but explicit guidance is absent.

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