Invite a user to the workspace by email (role 'member' only; admin invitations require the workspace settings UI; the inviter is the workspace owner). An invitation email is sent automatically. The invitation expires after 7 days. Use campaignstack_list_invitations to check pending invitations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | Only "member" invitations can be created via MCP | |
| Yes | |||
| workspaceId | Yes |
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?
The annotations only indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: an invitation email is sent automatically, invitations expire after 7 days, and the inviter must be the workspace owner. It doesn't cover failure modes or response format, but it provides solid transparency for the core 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?
Three concise, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by role restrictions, side effects, expiration, and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool.
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?
The description covers the action, role constraint, inviter requirement, automatic email, expiration, and how to check invitations. Without an output schema, this is strong contextual coverage, though it could mention duplicate-invite or failure behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'email' by explaining the invitation is sent by email, and reinforces the 'role' constraint by stating member-only. The 'workspaceId' is not explicitly described, but the parameter name is self-explanatory in context.
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: 'Invite a user to the workspace by email,' and identifies the specific resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from admin invitations and from the sibling list_invitations tool.
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 gives explicit conditions for use: only 'member' role invitations are allowed, admin invitations require the workspace settings UI, and pending invitations can be checked via campaignstack_list_invitations. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.
Many tools share the same verb prefix (create_, list_, update_, get_) across closely related resources, so pairs like add_lead_to_external_list vs add_lead_to_sequence, create_signal_agent vs create_signal_watch, and approve_review vs approve_content_post can be confused. The descriptions are unusually detailed and cross-referenced, which mitigates but does not eliminate the ambiguity inherent in a 282-tool surface.
Virtually every tool follows the campaignstack_verb_noun snake_case pattern, which is highly predictable. Minor deviations exist: destructive operations mix remove_ and delete_ (remove_lead_list vs delete_campaign), AI generation uses both craft_ and generate_, and the seo_/search_console_ subdomains introduce a second prefix convention.
282 tools is an extreme mismatch by any reasonable standard, exceeding the 50+ threshold by more than 5x. Even for a full B2B outreach platform, this surface is far too large and would be better consolidated into higher-level operations or grouped sub-servers.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering campaigns, workflows, leads, content, ads, SEO, integrations, billing, and more with CRUD-level depth. Minor gaps remain: no single-ICP getter, no direct pause/delete for search watches, and no explicit delete for ad campaigns (only archive via update).
