Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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
handoverToNoThe single agent or code step to run after this one completes ("Handover to"). Null clears it; omit to leave it unchanged. Mutually exclusive with @-mention handovers in the AOP.
revision_nameNoOptional user-defined name for this revision. Pass null to clear.
handoverOptionsNoCode steps only. The targets the program may request, and whether it must. Null clears them; omit to leave unchanged. Mutually exclusive with handoverTo in one request.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / handoverOptions
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "properties": {
+        "required": {
+          "description": "When true, a run that exits cleanly without requesting a handover fails",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "targetAgentIds": {
+          "description": "Steps in the same automation this code step's program may request",
+          "items": {
+            "format": "uuid",
+            "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "minItems": 1,
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "targetAgentIds",
+        "required"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Code steps only. The targets the program may request, and whether it must. Null clears them; omit to leave unchanged. Mutually exclusive with handoverTo in one request."
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / handoverTo
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "The single agent or code step to run after this one completes (\"Handover to\"). Null clears it; omit to leave it unchanged. Mutually exclusive with @-mention handovers in the AOP."
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and is not destructive. The description adds only the fact that it returns the updated revision. It does not disclose further side effects such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, or the behavior when editing an active revision versus a draft. Since the bar is lowered by the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no redundant filler. The action verb is frontloaded, the scope is enumerated concisely, and the return value is a single useful clause. It is easy to scan and contains no extraneous detail.

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 complex (8 parameters, nested objects, conditional branching logic), but the schema descriptions are very detailed (e.g., the semantics of selected_automation_revision_id). The description adds the return value, which is important since there is no output schema. The key draft-vs-active interaction is not mentioned in the description, but it is thoroughly documented in the schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent that will read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – every parameter has a detailed description including nuances like null-clearing and mutual exclusivity. The description adds no parameter specifics beyond a general summary of field categories, so it contributes no additional value over the schema. A balanced baseline of 3 is correct.

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 operation (update), the resource (revision), and specifically which attributes (configuration, name, description, handover targets). This is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings such as createRevision, getRevision, and promoteAutomationRevision. It also adds the return value expectation, which is not present in the title.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives a flat statement of what the tool does but provides no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the draft/active branching behavior. There is no naming of sibling tools or conditions for selecting updateRevision instead of createRevision or other revision operations. This matches the update_drive calibration, which was scored 2.

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