setClarityLandscapeNodePlacementMove a process landscape node (team manager or above for team processes; organization admin for areas)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | ||
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| parentId | 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 convey that this is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds role requirements and clarifies the operation is a move rather than a general update. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to child nodes, whether parentId=null moves to root, or how placement ordering works, though annotations reduce the burden.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical role note is compact and relevant, and every word contributes to understanding the operation.
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 mutation tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this is under-specified. An agent cannot confidently infer the semantics of parentId=null, whether the tool reorders siblings, or how it differs from closely related landscape tools.
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 0% and the description does not explain orgId, nodeId, or parentId. The verb implies nodeId is the node being moved, but parentId accepting null and the meaning of placement are left entirely unspecified. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Move' and the resource 'process landscape node', making the core action identifiable. The role qualifier adds useful scope information. However, it doesn't name sibling tools like updateClarityLandscapeNode or reorderClarityLandscapeAreas, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 use this tool versus related landscape tools such as updateClarityLandscapeNode or reorderClarityLandscapeAreas. The parenthetical about team manager/organization admin permissions is about authorization, not use-case selection. With a large sibling list, an agent receives no routing help.
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.