Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AccountHub

by ai.accounthub
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cancel_shared_project_invite

Destructive

Cancel a pending invitation you sent into an AccountHub shared project (shared project) — NOT a Slack workspace. Only the person who invited them or the project owner can, and only while the invitee has not accepted (status invited): the accept link and any sign-up token stop working and the person disappears from the member list. Nothing is sent to the invitee. Someone who already joined cannot be removed this way.

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>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_shared_project_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
member_idYesThe pending invitation's member id (`member_id` returned by invite_to_shared_project, or from list_shared_projects members with status invited).
project_idYesThe shared project the invitation belongs to (from list_shared_projects).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial value beyond that: authorization requirements, the state constraint, the concrete effects (accept link and sign-up token stop working, member disappears from list), and that nothing is sent to the invitee. It adds rich behavioral context, but the destructiveHint was already provided by annotations. Note: this is well above the annotation-only floor; a 5 would require return-value or error-handling detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource and the key disambiguation, and every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense with parentheticals (shared project, status invited), which is efficient but marginally reduces scannability.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, effects, notification behavior, and state constraints. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both project_id and member_id, including where each value comes from. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource (cancel a pending shared-project invitation) with an explicit negative disambiguation (— NOT a Slack workspace) and a clear distinction from the invite_to_shared_project sibling. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States precise preconditions: only the inviter or project owner may act, and only while status is 'invited'. It also states the exclusion ('someone who already joined cannot be removed this way'), implying a different mechanism is required for that case.

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