Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Remove Revision Integration

removeRevisionIntegration
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an integration from an agent revision. Removes the slot for everyone on the revision, including all per-user connection pins. Requires edit permission on the agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesAgent ID
build_idYesBuild ID
integration_idYesIntegration ID (catalog integration ID or slot ID from the list response)
selected_automation_revision_idNoThe automation revision this edit is being made at. Pass a draft and the edit is folded into that draft itself; pass the active revision and the edit lands on a draft branched from it. A historic revision is rejected — it cannot be activated from without an explicit rebase. A revision belonging to a different automation is ignored, and the edit targets the automation the addressed agent belongs to. Omit to target the automation's active revision.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains the removal affects the slot for everyone on the revision and covers all per-user connection pins. It also notes the edit permission requirement. While it does not enumerate error conditions or exact side effects, the annotations already flag destructive and idempotent nature, and the description provides additional scope context.

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?

The description is concise—two sentences—and directly states the action, scope, and a prerequisite. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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 tool definition is complete for its purpose: it explains what it does, its effects, and required permissions. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the destructive nature. It could mention potential error cases or relationship to unpin operations, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in most contexts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema includes descriptions for all parameters, with integration_id and selected_automation_revision_id having detailed explanations (catalog/slot ID, branching behavior). agent_id and build_id are self-explanatory. The main description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema coverage is good, so overall clarity is high.

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 clearly states the tool removes an integration from an agent revision, and explicitly mentions it removes the slot for everyone on the revision including per-user connection pins. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attachRevisionIntegrations or listRevisionIntegrations.

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 indicates the action (removing an integration) and the requirement for edit permission, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly contrast with similar functions like unpinRevisionIntegrationConnection, but the 'including all per-user connection pins' phrase differentiates the scope, so usage is reasonably clear.

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