Skip to main content
Glama

elaichi__invite__create

Invite somebody who is not yet a member into this organization by email: mints a fresh accept link and emails it to them, the same as the Invite button in Settings → People. A member holds exactly ONE role, so role_ids must carry exactly one id (role.list) — the role they land with the moment they accept, the same cardinality member.set_roles enforces; team_ids is optional and puts them straight into those teams on acceptance. You cannot invite someone at a role that carries a permission you do not hold yourself — the same ceiling member.set_roles enforces. Refuses with a conflict when the address already belongs to a member of this organization; check member.list first if you are not sure. Some addresses are refused for reasons this operation will not disclose — treat that refusal as final rather than retrying the same address a different way. Returns the created invite record — id (inv_…), email, role_ids, team_ids, status, expires_at — plus email_sent; the raw accept link itself is never returned here, unlike the console’s copy-link view, because the email IS the delivery channel on this surface — if email_sent is false, tell the user delivery failed and that resending the SAME invitation is a human action in Settings → People, but inviting the address again from here is not blocked. To revoke a pending invitation, use invite.delete; to see who is still waiting, invite.list. NOT CALLABLE FROM ANY AI SURFACE, in-app agent or MCP: an invitation is a redeemable credential for an address the caller names, so it needs step-up reauthentication (confirming it is really you), which neither surface can ask for — every call from here is refused before anything is written or emailed. Say what needs doing and tell the user to do it in Settings → People in the Elaichi app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesAddress to invite. Case-insensitive; stored lowercased.
role_idsYesExactly one role id (`role_…`, from role.list) — an invite carries exactly one role, the role the invitee holds the moment they accept.
team_idsNoTeam ids (`team_…`, from team.list) the invitee joins immediately on acceptance. Optional; omit or send an empty array for none.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety signals, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects, refusal behavior, non-disclosable address refusals, the non-return of the accept link, email_sent semantics, resend restrictions, and hard refusal from AI surfaces with the reason (step-up reauthentication).

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?

The description is long and dense, but every sentence carries operational information and the main purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists around role cardinality, which is stated in both schema and prose, preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Despite having no output schema or meaningful annotations, the description fully covers what the return contains, delivery status handling, failure semantics, exclusions, and follow-up actions. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke this tool, including the crucial instruction that AI surfaces should not call it at all.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: role_ids must be exactly one and the role is held upon acceptance, the permission ceiling parallels member.set_roles, team_ids places invitees into teams immediately, and email is case-insensitive and lowercased. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb, resource, and mechanism: inviting a non-member by email, minting and emailing an accept link, and equates it to the Invite button in Settings → People. It also distinguishes itself from the console's copy-link view and from related invite operations.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context and names alternatives with conditions: check member.list for conflicts, use invite.list to see pending invites, and use invite.delete to revoke. It also explicitly states when the tool must NOT be called — from any AI surface — and instructs the agent to redirect the user to Settings → People.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources