Duvo MCP

Create Team Invite

createTeamInvite

Invite one person to a team. Pass processId to invite them to a specific Clarity process instead of the whole team (that requires the team:clarity-member role). Creating the invitation does NOT email anyone — call sendTeamInviteEmail with the returned id to deliver it, or use bulkCreateTeamInvites, which creates and emails in one step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	Team role to grant. One of: team:owner, team:superadmin, team:admin (deprecated), team:manager, team:builder, team:member, team:clarity-member. You cannot grant a role above your own. Process invitations must use team:clarity-member.
`email`	Yes	Email address of the person to invite.
`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.
`processId`	No	Invite the person to this Clarity process rather than the whole team. Requires the team:clarity-member role.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals a key behavioral trait: no email is sent. It also implies a returned id usable by a later tool. It could add more about duplicate-invite behavior, but the main side-effect is disclosed.

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: the first states the core action, the second explains the special processId case, and the third routes to related tools. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 description covers purpose, email side-effect, related tools, and role prerequisites, while the schema covers team_id and role constraints. Since there is no output schema, noting the returned id for the next email step is helpful. Minor omissions like duplicate-invite behavior keep it from a 5.

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%, and the schema already explains role, email, team_id, and processId in detail. The description adds context for processId and the role requirement, but most parameter meaning comes from the schema, so a 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: 'Invite one person to a team.' It also distinguishes itself from bulkCreateTeamInvites and sendTeamInviteEmail, and clarifies the processId variant. An agent can identify this tool's exact role among many sibling create tools.

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 explicitly says creating the invitation does NOT email anyone, and directs the agent to sendTeamInviteEmail or bulkCreateTeamInvites for email delivery. It also conditions processId usage on the team:clarity-member role, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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?