revertClarityProcessSnapshotArchive a Clarity v2 snapshot of either kind. If the live row is archived, the repository auto-promotes the latest historic row of the same kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | Snapshot kind to list | |
| process_id | Yes | The clarity process id | |
| snapshot_id | Yes | Snapshot id |
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 the operation as destructive and idempotent, so the description adds value by specifying the concrete state change: archiving a snapshot, and if it is the live row, auto-promoting the latest historic row of the same kind. This goes beyond the generic destructive hint, though it stops short of describing return behavior or the non-live-row case.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the important automatic promotion behavior.
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 three-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage cover the essential state transition. The remaining gaps are minor: there is no output schema and no explicit statement about what happens when a non-live snapshot is archived, but the core behavior is clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The phrase 'either kind' loosely maps to the kind enum and the live/historic distinction adds context around snapshot_id, but the description does not provide parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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 uses a concrete verb and object: 'Archive a Clarity v2 snapshot of either kind,' and it explains the key side effect (auto-promotion of the latest historic row). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related snapshot operations such as promoteClarityProcessSnapshot or saveClarityProcessSnapshot.
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?
No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus any of the many sibling snapshot tools. The conditional sentence describes a behavior that occurs if the live row is archived, but it does not state the intended trigger, prerequisites, or when an alternative like promote or save would be more appropriate.
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.