Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Update Team Invite

updateTeamInvite

Change the role on a pending team invitation. Only pending invitations can be updated — one already accepted or declined is rejected. Requires the Manager role or above on the invitation's own team.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the pending invitation to update.
roleYesNew team role for the invitation. One of: team:owner, team:superadmin, team:admin (deprecated), team:manager, team:builder, team:member, team:clarity-member. You cannot assign a role above your own.
team_idNoDuvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal the operation is a non-read-only mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: only pending invitations are accepted, accepted/declined invitations are rejected, and Manager role or above is required. This clarifies state constraints and permission needs that annotations do not express.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second adds the key state and permission constraints. There is no filler, repetition of schema content, or extraneous detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical conditions for successful invocation: pending state, role restriction, and authorization level. It could be slightly more complete by noting the success response or side effects, but the existing constraints are sufficient for correct usage.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the id, role, and team_id parameters. The description adds a team-level permission requirement, but this is contextual rather than parameter-specific, so it does not significantly increase parameter understanding 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 states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Change the role on a pending team invitation.' It also distinguishes this from related sibling tools like deleteTeamInvite, createTeamInvite, and updateTeamMemberRole by focusing on pending invitations and role changes.

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 clearly states when the tool applies ('Only pending invitations can be updated') and explicitly excludes accepted or declined invitations. It also provides an authorization requirement ('Requires the Manager role or above'), but does not name sibling tools as alternatives, such as using updateTeamMemberRole after an invitation is accepted.

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