Duvo MCP

Create Pulse Dashboard Attachment Upload Url

createPulseDashboardAttachmentUploadUrl

Issue a presigned upload URL for a file to attach to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message (e.g. an HTML dashboard to copy, or a screenshot to match). POST the file bytes to the returned upload_url as multipart form data under the field name 'file', then pass the returned attachment_id in the attachments array of POST /artifacts/{artifactId}/messages. The agent reads the file directly from its sandbox. Files live as long as the dashboard's sandbox (about 12 hours), so upload shortly before sending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filename`	Yes	Name of the file being attached, without any path segments
`mime_type`	Yes	MIME type of the file, e.g. text/html or image/png
`artifactId`	Yes
`size_bytes`	Yes	Size of the file in bytes (max 25MB)

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the URL is presigned, the file is read directly from the agent's sandbox, and files expire with the dashboard's sandbox in about 12 hours. This goes beyond the structured annotation fields without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, exact upload protocol, and lifetime warning. The critical usage constraint is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly names both returned values (upload_url and attachment_id) and explains how to use them. It also covers the file lifetime and sandbox context. For a 4-parameter upload tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call and act on the result.

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 75%, so the schema already documents filename, mime_type, and size_bytes. The description adds that artifactId is used in the messages path and that the multipart field must be named 'file', which is useful but does not deeply explain each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Issue a presigned upload URL for a file to attach to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message.' It also gives concrete examples (HTML dashboard, screenshot) and the tool name alone distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like createCaseAttachmentUploadUrl or createSandboxUploadUrl.

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 gives a clear workflow: POST the file as multipart form data to the returned upload_url, then pass the attachment_id to POST /artifacts/{artifactId}/messages. It explicitly advises uploading shortly before sending due to the 12-hour lifetime. It does not explicitly compare against sibling upload-URL tools, but the intended context is clear.

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?