Invite a new member to your organization (admin/owner only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name | |
| role | No | Role: member or admin (default: member) | |
| Yes | User email address | ||
| skills | No | Skills list (optional) | |
| positions | No | Position titles to assign (optional — resolves by name) | |
| team_name | No | Team name to add user to (optional) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement (admin/owner only), but it does not describe the effects of inviting (e.g., whether an email is sent, if the invite creates a pending state, or how duplicates are handled). This adds some behavioral context but leaves important aspects unstated.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, stating the action, target, and permission prerequisite efficiently.
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 schema covers all parameters and the description gives the permission gate, but the tool lacks an output schema and the description does not mention expected outcomes, error conditions, or the broader invite lifecycle (e.g., how it relates to accept_org_invite). It is adequate but not rich.
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 100%, so all six parameters (name, role, email, skills, positions, team_name) are already documented in the schema. The description text adds no additional parameter-level meaning, fitting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Invite' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a new member to your organization'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_org_invite (accepting an invite) and list_pending_invites (listing pending invites).
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 explicitly states '(admin/owner only)', which gives a clear usage restriction and context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but it does clarify who may invoke it.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
