Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Update Skill File

updateSkillFile
Idempotent

Update the content of a file in a skill, overwriting the active revision in place — the previous content is not recoverable. Prefer the non-destructive flow when you can: createSkillRevision to open a draft, updateSkillRevisionFile to edit it, promoteSkillRevision to activate it. Only team skills can be edited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative path to the file inside the skill, e.g. SKILL.md.
contentYesNew UTF-8 text content for the file.
skill_idYesSkill ID.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'overwriting the active revision in place — the previous content is not recoverable,' which is a destructive behavior, but annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add useful behavioral context, such as irrecoverability and team-only constraint, but the contradiction with annotations overrides it.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: the operation, the irrecoverability warning, the safer alternative flow, and the team-only constraint. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite the annotation contradiction, the description alone covers the essential context for this mutation tool: what it does, the destructive consequence, the recommended safer path, and a permission constraint. With a simple three-parameter schema and no output schema, this is sufficient and thorough.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with 'path', 'content', and 'skill_id' each documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It slightly reinforces that 'content' is the file body, but no new information is provided.

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 content of a file in a skill, overwriting the active revision in place.' It specifies the exact resource and action, and effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the non-destructive alternatives (createSkillRevision, updateSkillRevisionFile, promoteSkillRevision).

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer the non-destructive flow when you can,' followed by the exact alternative sequence. It also states a critical precondition: 'Only team skills can be edited.' This is clear, actionable, and directly addresses alternatives.

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