Duvo MCP

Send Pulse Dashboard Message

sendPulseDashboardMessage

Send an instruction to iterate on a Duvo Pulse dashboard (e.g. 'make it a bar chart', 'filter to last 14 days'). The creator can always iterate; teammates can too when the Pulse is published to the team with edit access. The agent regenerates asynchronously — poll GET /artifacts/{artifactId} for status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes
`artifactId`	Yes
`attachments`	No	Attachments to hand the agent, uploaded beforehand via the upload-urls endpoint (max 5)
`from_revision_id`	No
`selected_element`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / selected_element / properties / openui_node

Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "component": {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "maxLength": 2000,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "statement": {
+      "maxLength": 200,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "statement",
+    "component"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the asynchronous regeneration and the polling endpoint GET /artifacts/{artifactId}, plus the permission constraint for teammates. These go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) to set agent expectations, though it does not explain overwrite or versioning behavior.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the async polling detail placed last. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description correctly orients the agent to send an instruction and poll for status, but for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema it should say more about what the immediate response contains, what statuses indicate completion, and the roles of from_revision_id and selected_element.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly distinguishes message and artifactId. It does not explain from_revision_id or selected_element, and attachments semantics are left to the schema. The examples help for message but not for the other parameters.

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 opens with 'Send an instruction to iterate on a Duvo Pulse dashboard' and gives concrete examples like 'make it a bar chart' and 'filter to last 14 days'. This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and purpose, and semantically separates it from siblings such as answerPulseDashboardQuestion and refreshPulseDashboard.

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?

It provides clear usage context: creators can always iterate, teammates can only when the Pulse is published with edit access, and the input is a natural-language instruction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it does not reach a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Duvo MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?