team.invitations.createCreate a team invitation for an email address (SMTP invite is sent by the team service).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Invitee email address |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Invitation ID | |
| Yes | Invitee email address | ||
| status | Yes | Invitation status (e.g. PENDING) | |
| createdAt | No | Creation timestamp (RFC 3339) |
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 description adds useful behavioral context by noting that an SMTP invite is sent by the team service, which is a side effect not captured by the annotations. It does not mention duplicate handling or idempotency behavior, but the provided side-effect note adds meaningful transparency.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.
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 tool is simple: one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema available. The description plus annotations provide enough context to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from team.members.add, which could matter in a real agent workflow.
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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'email' is described as 'Invitee email address' in the schema. The description merely restates that the invitation is for an email address, so it adds no additional semantic depth beyond the schema.
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 names the action ('create'), the resource ('team invitation'), and the target ('an email address'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like team.members.add, but the resource is specific enough to convey the primary purpose.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as team.members.add or team.invitations.list/delete. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the name and the action verb.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.