organizeClarityProcessLandscapeStart an asynchronous organization pass over the organization's unfiled processes, placing them into the Process Landscape where possible (organization admin+). Results appear progressively; started is false when there is nothing to organize.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | ||
| instructions | No | Deprecated: ignored. The organize pass takes no instructions. |
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 signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description adds valuable context by disclosing async execution, progressive results, and the 'started is false when there is nothing to organize' edge case. It also surfaces the admin+ permission gate. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the async and result behavior. There is no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and every clause contributes useful information.
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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, admin permission, async execution, progressive appearance of results, and the meaningful false-start condition. It could specify how to observe progress or handle concurrent passes, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 schema documents instructions as deprecated/ignored but leaves orgId with only format and pattern. The description indirectly clarifies orgId as the target organization by referring to the organization's unfiled processes, but it does not explicitly map either parameter or provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific action ('Start an asynchronous organization pass'), names the resource ('the organization's unfiled processes'), and states the destination ('placing them into the Process Landscape'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/generate/propose landscape tools by framing it as an organizing operation rather than a read or generation operation.
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?
It provides clear context: use this when you want to organize unfiled processes into the Process Landscape, and it flags the admin+ permission requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is left somewhat implicit.
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.