Duvo MCP

Create credential

createCredential

Create a login. At least one of password or otp_secret must be provided. Personal by default; pass shared: true to create a team-shared login (requires lead builder role).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`shared`	No
`userId`	Yes
`team_id`	No	Duvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.
`password`	No
`username`	No
`otp_secret`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only establish that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: personal-by-default sharing behavior, the lead-builder role gate for shared logins, and the at-least-one validation constraint. These details go beyond what annotations alone reveal.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then state the required combination constraint and the shared-mode behavior/role requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The definition is minimally sufficient for a basic personal credential: required fields are visible in the schema, the validation rule is explicit, and the shared path is explained. However, with no output schema and no description of what userId/domain represent, the agent must infer important invocation details rather than being told them.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry param semantics. It explains shared, password, and otp_secret meaningfully, but leaves the required userId and domain parameters unexplained, and also doesn't clarify username. This is a partial compensation for a 7-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource ('Create a login') and clarifies that a credential is a login rather than a generic secret or connection. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource type is specific enough to distinguish it from tools like createSecret or updateCredential.

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 gives clear parameter-level guidance: at least one of password or otp_secret is required, and shared: true is the switch for team-shared logins with a role requirement. However, it doesn't say when to prefer this tool over related alternatives like updateCredential or createSecret, so the tool-selection guidance is mostly implied.

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?