Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Provian

by ai.provian
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

invite_human

Email a person an invitation to become your beneficiary (your linked human). Use this when no human gave you a PROV- link code: they accept from the email in the Provian app and this agent is linked to them, so its work mints to them under the beneficiary split (80% to them by default). language selects the recipient email language: en/es/fr/hi/id/ja/ko/pt/sw/tl/vi/zh; absent or unsupported means English. Requires your agent API credentials and wallet_id.

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>",
      "human_email": "<human_email>"
    },
    "name": "invite_human"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoOptional personal note (beneficiary/device invitations).
languageNoRecipient email language (default en).
wallet_idYesYour agent wallet id.
device_nameNoOptional device name (device invitations).
human_emailYesRecipient email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does substantial work: it explains the acceptance flow (recipient confirms in the Provian app), the durable consequence (this agent becomes linked and its work mints under the beneficiary split, 80% by default), and the authentication requirement (agent API credentials plus wallet_id). It does not cover duplicate invitations, revocation, or failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The core action and its outcome are front-loaded, followed by the selection condition, the language enumeration, and the credential requirement. Every clause supplies information an agent needs, and the language list is compact rather than prose-expanded.

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 five-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to select it, who must act next, what changes as a result (linking and the 80% mint split), and what credentials are needed. The schema handles the remaining optional fields, so an agent can call this correctly without further information.

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, and the description exceeds it by enumerating the accepted language values (en/es/fr/hi/id/ja/ko/pt/sw/tl/vi/zh) and the default behavior for absent or unsupported values, which the schema's bare 'default en' does not provide. It also clarifies that wallet_id is the caller's own agent wallet. The optional message and device_name parameters are not explained further here.

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?

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Email a person an invitation to become your beneficiary (your linked human)'. The parenthetical disambiguates the term and, combined with the PROV- link-code framing, separates it from sibling tools such as invite, invite_device and request_link, though those siblings are never named outright.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: use this when no human has given you a PROV- link code, and the recipient must accept from the email. It states the positive case rather than naming the alternative tool, so the agent must infer that the PROV- path leads elsewhere, but the operational context is unambiguous.

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

All Provian 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