Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Generate Clarity Process Snapshot

generateClarityProcessSnapshot

Trigger a snapshot generation pipeline for a v2 clarity process, selected by kind. current_process runs the generateCurrentProcess pipeline (body fields are proposal-only and rejected); transformation_proposal runs the generate or regenerate proposal pipeline. Returns 202 immediately and finalises asynchronously via the cc-server webhook stream.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesSnapshot kind to list
process_idYesThe clarity process id
custom_guidanceNoAutomation proposals only: optional freeform guidance for this generation. Used as high-priority design guidance, not source-of-truth evidence.
regenerate_fromNoAutomation proposals only: id of a prior proposal snapshot to refine. When supplied, runs the regenerate pipeline using that proposal's current-process snapshot as the anchor and the extra captures collected since.
source_snapshot_idNoAutomation proposals only: id of the current-process snapshot to anchor the new proposal to. Defaults to the latest snapshot for the process.
transformation_aggressivenessNoAutomation proposals only: controls how much the generated proposal should change the current process structure.aggressive

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / custom_guidance / description
      Previous value: -"Transformation proposals only: optional freeform guidance for this generation. Used as high-priority design guidance, not source-of-truth evidence."New value: +"Automation proposals only: optional freeform guidance for this generation. Used as high-priority design guidance, not source-of-truth evidence."
    • changedInput schema / properties / regenerate_from / description
      Previous value: -"Transformation proposals only: id of a prior proposal snapshot to refine. When supplied, runs the regenerate pipeline using that proposal's current-process snapshot as the anchor and the extra captures collected since."New value: +"Automation proposals only: id of a prior proposal snapshot to refine. When supplied, runs the regenerate pipeline using that proposal's current-process snapshot as the anchor and the extra captures collected since."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_snapshot_id / description
      Previous value: -"Transformation proposals only: id of the current-process snapshot to anchor the new proposal to. Defaults to the latest snapshot for the process."New value: +"Automation proposals only: id of the current-process snapshot to anchor the new proposal to. Defaults to the latest snapshot for the process."
    • changedInput schema / properties / transformation_aggressiveness / description
      Previous value: -"Transformation proposals only: controls how much the generated proposal should change the current process structure."New value: +"Automation proposals only: controls how much the generated proposal should change the current process structure."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns 202 immediately, finalises asynchronously via the cc-server webhook stream, and rejects proposal-only body fields for current_process. Since the annotations provide only false hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), the description carries the burden and does so effectively.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core operation, the second disambiguates the two kind branches and their constraints, and the third communicates the asynchronous behavior. Despite the semantic complexity, the description is compact and front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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?

For a complex, asynchronous, two-mode tool with no output schema, this is largely complete: it explains the immediate response, the async completion path, the kind-dependent behavior, and the proposal-only field restrictions. It could go further by describing what the webhook payload contains or how to correlate the resulting snapshot, but the essential calling context is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents all six parameters with good coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by clarifying that kind selects two different pipelines and that certain fields are proposal-only and rejected for current_process. It also meaningfully supplements the schema's weak kind description ('Snapshot kind to list'), making the parameter semantics clearer than the schema alone.

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 action ('Trigger a snapshot generation pipeline') with a clearly identified resource ('v2 clarity process') and selection mechanism ('selected by kind'). It also names the two distinct pipeline branches, current_process and transformation_proposal, so an agent can distinguish this from related snapshot tools like getClarityProcessSnapshot, listClarityProcessSnapshots, or promoteClarityProcessSnapshot.

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 clearly explains when each kind should be used and warns that proposal-only body fields are rejected for current_process. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use something else, such as getClarityProcessSnapshot for reading an existing snapshot or postprocessClaritySnapshot for later processing. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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