updateSecretUpdate an env-var secret. Send values to replace all entries, or any of rename_keys, remove_keys, add_values for a non-destructive patch. Editing a team-shared secret or toggling sharing requires lead builder role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| shared | No | ||
| values | No | ||
| add_values | No | ||
| remove_keys | No | ||
| rename_keys | No | ||
| service_slug | No |
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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that the operation can fully replace or partially patch entries, and that toggling sharing requires a special role. This adds useful behavioral context, though it does not cover idempotency, conflict handling, or return behavior.
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 concise (two sentences) and logically structured: first the purpose, then the operational modes, then the role caveat. No redundant or vague wording.
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?
While the description covers the main update modes and role requirement, it does not explain the behavior of name and service_slug parameters, nor does it address potential errors (e.g., conflicting values and add_values) or the return payload. Given the lack of an output schema, some gaps remain, but the description is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the tool description is the only source of meaning. It explains the semantics of the key parameters (values, rename_keys, remove_keys, add_values) and clarifies that shared toggling has role implications. It omits explanations for id, name, and service_slug, but the core update parameters are well covered.
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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('env-var secret'), and distinguishes between full replacement and non-destructive patch modes. It also mentions a critical role requirement, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description provides concrete guidance on how to use the tool ('send values to replace, or rename_keys/remove_keys/add_values for patch') and mentions the role requirement for team-shared secrets. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like createSecret or deleteSecret, but the context of updating an existing secret is implied.
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.