Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AccountHub

by ai.accounthub
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

add_chat_group_members

Add people to a group chat (an AccountHub shared project) you are an active member of. People in member_user_ids (your collaborators from list_chat_contacts) join at once without accepting; emails are invited (accept_url returned; nothing is emailed from here). Posts a line saying who joined, which notifies them at their chat notification destinations. Never adds anyone to a one-to-one chat. Trial users only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_chat_group_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailsNoEmail addresses to invite (accept_url returned; no email is sent from MCP).
project_idYesThe group (shared project) to add people to. You must be an active member.
member_user_idsNoAccountHub people to add directly (user_id from list_chat_contacts).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations (destructiveHint=false only): member_user_ids join immediately without accepting, emails produce an accept_url and send nothing from this server, a visible join line is posted that notifies at chat notification destinations, and one-to-one chats are rejected. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before mutating a group.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying distinct facts (scope, direct-add behavior, invite behavior, notification side effect, two hard exclusions) with the core action front-loaded and no repetition of the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral contract: permission requirement, invitation mechanics, notification fan-out, and hard exclusions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by clarifying the semantic split between the two optional arrays (direct-add members vs invite-by-email) and by naming list_chat_contacts as the provenance of user_ids, which helps the agent populate the right array.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add people to a group chat (an AccountHub shared project)') and explicitly excludes one-to-one chats, which separates it from invite_direct_chat. It does not, however, draw the line against the closely-named sibling invite_to_shared_project, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (must be an active member, trial users only) and explains the two operating modes: member_user_ids for immediate joins vs emails for invitations. It points at list_chat_contacts as the source of user_ids, but never names an alternative tool to use when these conditions aren't met.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AccountHub toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources