listRevisionLoginsList logins attached to a specific revision (build) of an assignment. Returns metadata only — passwords and OTP secrets are never exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | ||
| buildId | Yes |
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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the return is metadata only and that passwords and OTP secrets are never exposed, which is critical for an agent handling sensitive login data.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The core operation, scope, and important security constraint are front-loaded and concise.
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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential operation and safety expectations. It lacks detail on the exact fields returned or pagination, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity and the secrecy guarantee.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'build' means a revision and ties the tool to an assignment, which helps infer that agentId identifies the assignment and buildId identifies the revision. However, it never explicitly names or maps the parameters.
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 clearly states the verb (List), resource (logins attached to a specific revision/build of an assignment), and scope. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like attachRevisionLogin, detachRevisionLogin, and listRevisionSecrets.
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 usage by defining what the tool lists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listRevisionSecrets or listRevisionIntegrations. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided.
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.