Duvo MCP

Update Slack Channel Trigger

updateSlackTrigger

Update a Slack channel trigger you own — repoint it at another channel, change which messages match, or pause and resume it with enabled. Only the supplied fields change. Resuming a paused trigger requires the Slack connection it runs off to still be available on the agent; changing the channel resets the trigger's seen-message state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`enabled`	No	Set to false to pause the trigger without deleting it, or true to resume it. Resuming requires the connection the trigger uses to still be available on the agent.
`channel_id`	No	New Slack channel ID to watch. Omit to leave unchanged.
`is_private`	No	Whether the channel is private.
`match_rule`	No	Which channel messages fire the trigger: `{"kind":"all"}` for every message, or `{"kind":"contains","values":["invoice"]}` to match keywords.
`trigger_id`	Yes	The Slack channel trigger's unique identifier
`channel_name`	No	New Slack channel name, without the leading `#`.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description meaningfully discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: partial updates, the connection prerequisite for resuming a paused trigger, and the state-resetting side effect of changing channels. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know when invoking a mutation that is not annotated destructive.

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?

Two sentences carry the full meaning, with the core action front-loaded and supporting behavioral caveats placed right after. There is no redundant language, and every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an update tool with six parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the critical operational details: what can change, partial-update semantics, a prerequisite for resuming, and a side effect of channel changes. The schema fills in parameter-level detail, making this complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting `enabled` to pause/resume semantics, noting the channel-change state reset, and reinforcing partial-update behavior. This is a modest but tangible contribution beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Update a Slack channel trigger you own,' and enumerates the distinct update capabilities (repoint channel, change match rule, pause/resume). The ownership qualifier adds scope, and the specificity of 'Slack channel trigger' distinguishes it from related trigger tools like updateAgentCaseTrigger.

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?

The description makes clear this is for updating existing Slack channel triggers, not creating or deleting them, and stresses partial-update semantics via 'Only the supplied fields change.' It provides context for when to use it but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like createAgentSlackTrigger or deleteSlackTrigger.

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?