Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Update Revision

updateRevision

Update a revision's configuration, name, description, or handover targets. Returns the updated revision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
configNoBuild configuration object
build_idYesThe build's unique identifier
handoverToNoThe single agent or code step to run after this one completes ("Handover to"). Null clears it; omit to leave it unchanged. Mutually exclusive with @-mention handovers in the AOP.
revision_nameNoOptional user-defined name for this revision. Pass null to clear.
handoverTargetIdsNoAgent IDs that this agent can hand over work to
revision_descriptionNoOptional user-defined description for this revision. Pass null to clear.
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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / handoverTo
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "The single agent or code step to run after this one completes (\"Handover to\"). Null clears it; omit to leave it unchanged. Mutually exclusive with @-mention handovers in the AOP."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is not read-only and not destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the return behavior, but it does not disclose subtleties like null-means-clear, draft branching via selected_automation_revision_id, or rejection of historic revisions; those details live in the parameter schema rather than the tool description.

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?

One sentence with no filler: it leads with the action, names the affected fields, and ends with the return value. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a seven-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading. The parameter schema carries most of the invocation detail, yet the high-level description does not mention the non-obvious active/draft/historic revision semantics or that several fields are null-to-clear; overall it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter including handoverTo and selected_automation_revision_id has meaningful documentation. The description enumerates some updatable fields but adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('revision') and names the fields affected: configuration, name, description, and handover targets. This distinguishes it from related operations like createRevision, getRevision, and promoteRevision, and it also states the return value ('Returns the updated revision').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for modifying an existing revision's metadata or handover setup, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention that createRevision is for new revisions or that updateSkillRevision exists for skill revisions, so routing is left largely to inference.

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