Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ankra

by ai.ankra
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Invite organisation member

invite_organisation_member

Invite a person to this organisation by email (the twin of ankra org invite). Needs members.invite. role is the organisation role (member, admin, read-only), or project to limit the person to one project: then project_id names it and project_role_slug the role they hold there (member when omitted). Refused for a role carrying a permission you do not hold yourself, when the person already has a pending invite or membership, and on a single-user plan. The invitation is emailed and stays pending until the person accepts it.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "invite_organisation_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYesThe organisation role, or project for a project-only membership.
emailYesThe person's email address.
project_idNoUUID of the project, required with role project and refused otherwise (from list_projects).
project_role_slugNoThe built-in role held in the project with role project; member when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the members.invite permission requirement, the privilege-escalation guard, duplicate/pending-invite refusal, single-user-plan restriction, and the fact that the invite is emailed and stays pending until accepted (consistent with non-idempotent, non-destructive hints). The annotations already declare the write/side-effect profile, so this extra context is the value-add. A 5 would need something like what happens to an existing declined invite or invite expiry.

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 action and permission, then role branching, then failure modes. Every sentence carries information, though the middle clause chain ("or project to limit the person...") is dense and could be broken into shorter statements.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers permissions, failure modes, and the asynchronous pending-invite lifecycle for a write tool with no output schema — enough for an agent to call it correctly and set expectations. Marginal gaps are invite expiry and how to revoke a pending invite, which the agent would need a sibling for.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the project_id conditional and the "member when omitted" default for project_role_slug. The description restates that branch and adds little beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Invite a person to this organisation by email") plus the CLI twin for grounding. The scope (this organisation, by email) is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from update_organisation_member_role or remove_organisation_member without opening a schema.

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 conditional routing: use role=member/admin/read-only for an org-wide invite, or role=project with project_id to scope to one project. Also lists the refusal conditions (missing permission on the granted role, existing pending invite, single-user plan), which is strong guidance. It stops short of naming sibling tools for follow-up actions like changing or revoking a role, so it is clear context rather than full alternative routing.

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

All Ankra 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