listRevisionIntegrationConnectionsList the connections you have pinned to this build's integration slot. Multi-pin is supported: you can pin multiple connections to the same slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID | |
| build_id | Yes | Build ID | |
| integration_id | Yes | Integration ID (catalog integration ID or slot ID from the list response) |
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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: multi-pin is supported, so multiple connections may appear for the same slot. It does not cover return format or pagination, but for a simple read-only list this is a reasonable level of disclosure.
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 short sentences with no filler; the primary action and target are front-loaded. The second sentence adds only the non-obvious multi-pin behavior. Every word 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 simple read-only list operation, the description, schema, and annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the purpose makes the response type predictable. Slight ambiguity around what exactly an 'integration slot' is remains, but the schema's integration_id note mitigates it.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the note that integration_id can be a slot ID. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. With full schema coverage, a 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?
States a clear verb and resource: it lists connections pinned to a build's integration slot, not all connections. The 'pinned' and 'slot' wording distinguishes it from broader tools like listConnections and listRevisionIntegrations. The multi-pin note further clarifies the scope of what is being listed.
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 implies the use case – inspecting pinned connections for a build's integration slot – but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives like listRevisionIntegrations or listConnections. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferable, but explicit routing guidance is missing.
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.