getCaseAttachmentDownloadUrlMint a short-lived signed URL for one case attachment. disposition=inline serves the file for the in-app viewer; attachment forces a download.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | The case's unique identifier | |
| queue_id | Yes | The queue's unique identifier | |
| disposition | No | attachment | |
| attachment_id | Yes | The attachment's unique identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the URL is 'short-lived' and 'signed', which implies expiration and authentication requirements. It also explains the behavioral difference between inline serving and forced download, which is not captured in the schema or annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the disposition clarification is the only additional detail included. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering parameter semantics, the description is nearly complete. It implies the return value is a URL and discloses the short-lived signed nature. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact response shape or URL expiration duration, but there is no output schema expecting that elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description compensates for the one undocumented parameter ('disposition') by explaining the meaning and effect of both enum values. The other parameters are already well-described in the schema with UUID format and role-specific descriptions, so the marginal value added by the description is appropriately targeted at the gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Mint'), a precise resource ('one case attachment'), and the output ('short-lived signed URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getFileDownloadUrl or getPulseDashboardAttachmentDownloadUrl. The additional disposition explanation further clarifies the tool's two modes of behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain a download URL for a single case attachment. It also explains how to choose between 'inline' and 'attachment' disposition values, which is practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the resource-specific scoping makes the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.