Duvo MCP

List Cases

listCases

Read-onlyIdempotent

List cases in a queue. Supports status, date-range, and free-text filters via query params. Set count_only=true to skip Case row selection and transformation. The normal response shape is returned with cases: [] and the matching total. For label filters, use POST /v2/queues/:queue_id/cases/search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of cases per page (1-100, default 20).
`offset`	No	Zero-based offset for pagination.
`search`	No	Full-text search across case title and data.
`status`	No	Filter by one or more status buckets (comma-separated). Values: all, pending, processing, needs_input, postponed, needs_review, resolved, canceled. `processing` covers both a case actively being worked and one waiting on its evaluation.
`sort_by`	No	Field to sort by. Default: created_at.	created_at
`priority`	No	Filter by one or more priority levels (comma-separated). Values: none, medium, high.
`queue_id`	Yes	The queue's unique identifier
`count_only`	No	Skip row selection and enrichment. The normal list response shape is returned with an empty row array and the matching total.	false
`sort_order`	No	Sort direction. Default: desc.	desc
`created_at_to`	No	Return only cases created before this ISO-8601 timestamp. The upper bound is exclusive.
`updated_at_to`	No	Return only cases updated before this ISO-8601 timestamp. The upper bound is exclusive.
`issue_severity`	No	Filter by highest failing rubric severity (comma-separated). Values: critical, medium. Severity is a facet within the issues outcome, so it returns nothing when combined with a status bucket that excludes issues. `low` is not selectable: an all-low verdict is stored as success, so no case carries it.
`created_at_from`	No	Return only cases created at or after an ISO-8601 timestamp or a lookback such as 24h or 7d.
`updated_at_from`	No	Return only cases updated at or after an ISO-8601 timestamp or a lookback such as 24h or 7d.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Filter by one or more status buckets (comma-separated). Values: all, pending, processing, needs_input, postponed, needs_review, resolved, canceled."New value: +"Filter by one or more status buckets (comma-separated). Values: all, pending, processing, needs_input, postponed, needs_review, resolved, canceled. `processing` covers both a case actively being worked and one waiting on its evaluation."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / issue_severity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by highest failing rubric severity (comma-separated). Values: critical, medium. Severity is a facet within the issues outcome, so it returns nothing when combined with a status bucket that excludes issues. `low` is not selectable: an all-low verdict is stored as success, so no case carries it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that count_only=true skips Case row selection and transformation while still returning the normal response shape with cases: [] and the matching total.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler. The core action and key behavioral caveat about count_only are front-loaded, and the alternative endpoint is cleanly placed at the end.

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 the main purpose, the count_only behavior, and the label-filter alternative, which is strong for a read-only list operation with a fully documented schema. It does not describe the normal response envelope or case fields, but that gap is minor given the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the operation's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description only summarizes filter categories at a high level and does not add detail beyond what the parameter descriptions provide, which matches the baseline.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List cases in a queue,' and immediately defines the filtering scope via status, date-range, and free-text query params. It also distinguishes itself from the search endpoint by explicitly directing label-filter use to POST /v2/queues/:queue_id/cases/search.

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?

Provides clear routing guidance: use this tool for queue listing with status/date/free-text filters, and use the search endpoint when label filters are needed. It does not enumerate every alternative such as exportCases or getCase, but the primary when-not condition is explicit.

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?