Semata

Invite organisation member

invite_organisation_member

Destructive

Invite a person by email to an organisation workspace as a viewer, member (the default) or admin; owners cannot be invited. Creates a pending invitation and sends an email to that address, which cannot be recalled by this server. Only organisation admins and owners can call it, and personal workspaces are refused. Fails when the person is already a member or already has a pending invitation. If the email cannot be sent the invitation still exists and has to be revoked in Semata before trying again. Requires OAuth or a scoped token with invite access.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No		member
`email`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes	The workspace id returned by list_workspaces. Use 'personal' for the personal workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description earns its place by explaining exactly why: an email is sent and the invitation cannot be recalled by this server. It also documents the partial-failure mode (email send fails yet the invitation persists and must be revoked in Semata) and the auth requirement (OAuth or scoped token with invite access).

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?

Dense single paragraph with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries a precondition, side effect, or failure mode. It is long for a three-parameter tool, but the density is justified by the mutation and email side effects.

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?

Covers purpose, permissions, role options, refusal cases, side effects, irreversibility, recovery path, and auth — everything needed to call a mutating invite tool correctly without an output schema.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the two undocumented parameters: it explains the role enum semantics and the default, and critically overrides the schema's 'personal' option by stating personal workspaces are refused. It does not restate email format or workspaceId sourcing, which the schema already covers.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Invite a person by email to an organisation workspace') plus the full role set and the default. No sibling tool in the list performs invitations, so the agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions: owners cannot be invited, personal workspaces are refused, and it fails if the person is already a member or has a pending invite. It also names the caller requirement (org admins and owners), which is the precondition that selects this tool.

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

All Semata tools Inspect

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

Need Help?