Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

List Clarity Extra Capture Requests

listClarityExtraCaptureRequests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List active extra-capture requests for a given automation proposal of a Clarity v2 process. The caller is expected to know the proposal id from the V2 read model and skip the call when no proposal exists yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results per page (1-100, default 20)
offsetNoNumber of results to skip (default 0)
process_idYesThe clarity process id
transformation_proposal_idYesThe automation proposal id

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / transformation_proposal_id / description
      Previous value: -"The transformation proposal id"New value: +"The automation proposal id"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool returns only 'active' requests, and the caller must already have a proposal id and should avoid calling when no proposal exists. This helps prevent misuse.

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?

Two focused sentences with clear front-loading: the first sentence states what the tool does, and the second gives a crucial precondition for correct usage. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 read-only list operation with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main precondition and clarifies the 'active' filter. The only minor gap is that 'extra-capture requests' and the 'V2 read model' are treated as known domain concepts, but this is acceptable given the surrounding tool context.

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 fully documents process_id, transformation_proposal_id, limit, and offset. The description adds domain context by explaining the transformation_proposal_id is for an automation proposal, but it does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

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 ('List active extra-capture requests') and a specific resource scope ('for a given automation proposal of a Clarity v2 process'). It clearly differentiates this from siblings like assignClarityExtraCaptureRequest and listClarityLandscapeCaptures by focusing on extra-capture requests tied to an automation proposal.

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 provides practical when-to-call guidance by telling the caller they need to know the proposal id from the V2 read model and should skip the call when no proposal exists yet. It does not name alternatives, but this is a fairly narrow list operation where the main usage risk is calling it prematurely.

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