getCaseQueueEvalRubricsList a queue's active case-level evaluation rubrics — the Pass/Fail questions a whole case is judged against at settlement. Shows the queue's current version's set (auto-generated from the connected Assignments' AOPs, plus any manually-authored rubrics).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queue_id | Yes | The queue'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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the set is auto-generated from connected Assignments' AOPs plus manually-authored rubrics, and that it reflects the queue's current version.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary context about the composition of the rubrics without redundant phrasing.
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 simple read-only list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (active case-level rubrics, current version set, auto-generated plus manual). It could mention edge cases like an empty queue or missing version, but the core context needed to call the tool correctly is present.
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 description coverage is 100%, with queue_id fully documented as 'The queue's unique identifier.' The description reinforces that the scope is queue-specific but adds no material semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource: a queue's active case-level evaluation rubrics. It further clarifies what those rubrics are (Pass/Fail questions judged at settlement) and distinguishes them from general eval rubrics by the 'case-level' and 'queue' qualifiers.
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 clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: whenever an agent needs a queue's case-level eval rubrics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like getEvalRubrics or createCaseQueueEvalRubric, nor does it state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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.