Duvo MCP

Bulk Update Case Priority

bulkUpdateCasePriority

Set the priority of multiple cases. Priority only affects the order pending cases are picked up in: due postponed cases are handled first, then higher priority. It never interrupts runs or changes case status. Set none to clear priority back to the default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`search`	No	Free-text search selecting the cases when all_matching is true.
`filters`	No	Filters selecting the cases when all_matching is true.
`case_ids`	No	Explicit case IDs to act on (1-100). Provide this or set all_matching.
`priority`	Yes	Target priority for each case. `medium`/`high` raise it above the default; `none` clears it.
`queue_id`	Yes	The queue's unique identifier
`all_matching`	No	When true, act on every case matching the provided filters/search instead of an explicit id list.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / filters / properties / issue_severity

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "critical",
+      "medium"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the semantics of priority ordering, noting that due postponed cases are handled first and higher priority follows. It also discloses non-side-effects and documents the effect of setting priority to 'none', which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 four compact sentences that front-load the action, then efficiently cover ordering semantics, non-effects, and the clearing behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary restating of schema property names.

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 behavioral and side-effect profile is well covered, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description does not address the selection-mode constraint between explicit case_ids and all_matching/filters, nor does it mention prerequisites like queue existence, so the agent must rely on the schema for these invocation details.

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 because the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only marginal value by explaining the default-clearing behavior of 'none', but it does not meaningfully clarify search, filters, case_ids, or all_matching beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Set the priority of multiple cases.' It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the bulk scope and by explicitly stating that it never changes case status, separating it from bulkUpdateCaseStatus.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: priority only affects the order pending cases are picked up, and it explicitly excludes side effects like interrupting runs or changing status. It does not name alternative tools such as bulkUpdateCaseStatus, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Duvo MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?