Skip to main content
Glama

Duvo MCP

by io.github.duvoai

Upsert Agent Trigger

upsertAgentTrigger
Idempotent

Create or update the authenticated user's trigger for an integration on an agent. The integration must already be connected to the agent (its OAuth connection set up in the Duvo dashboard). Set enabled: false to pause a trigger without deleting it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentIdYesThe agent's unique identifier
enabledNoWhether the trigger is active. Defaults to true.
trigger_typeYesTrigger type within the integration (e.g. `email_received`). Discover valid values via the trigger types endpoint.
filter_configNoIntegration-specific filter config (e.g. sender/subject filters). Shape comes from the integration's filter schema.
integration_slugYesIntegration slug the trigger fires for (e.g. `gmail`, `outlook`, `linear-native`, `google-drive`).

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?

The description discloses a prerequisite (integration must be connected) and a behavioral nuance (enabled: false pauses). These go beyond the annotations, which only state idempotent and non-destructive. It doesn't conflict with annotations and adds useful operational detail.

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?

The description is two sentences, no fluff, and directly conveys the action, prerequisites, and a key behavioral option. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers prerequisites, action, and a key option. It could mention side effects of update (e.g., overwriting existing triggers) but that is implicit in 'upsert' and the idempotency hint. Overall sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. The only extra context is the prerequisite about integration connection, which is not a parameter semantics issue.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create or update the authenticated user's trigger for an integration on an agent.' It specifies the resource (trigger), the scope (integration on an agent), and implies idempotency via 'create or update'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createAgentCaseTrigger or updateSlackTrigger.

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?

It provides important context: 'The integration must already be connected to the agent' and 'Set enabled: false to pause a trigger without deleting it.' It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over specific trigger tools, but the generic nature and idempotent hint make it clear this is for general integration triggers. Slightly more explicit comparison would elevate it.

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