Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Send4

by ai.send4
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Preview inviting a team member

preview_member_invite
Read-only

What inviting a person to this workspace by email would do, without sending anything: a summary (who, as what, seats in use) and a confirmation code valid for 10 minutes for invite_member. They can be invited as a manager or an agent, never an admin.

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>"
    },
    "name": "preview_member_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoTheir name, if known. They can change it when they sign up.
roleNo`client_agent` (default) answers conversations; `client_manager` also sees the team's work.
emailYesThe email address to invite.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds information they cannot carry: no email is actually dispatched, the call yields a summary of who/role/seat usage plus an ephemeral confirmation code with a 10-minute TTL. It also discloses a permission constraint (manager or agent, never admin), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotation block.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the no-side-effect guarantee front-loaded before the return payload and TTL. The opening construction ('What inviting a person ... would do') is slightly roundabout but it is dense and information-bearing rather than padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself and does so — summary contents plus the confirmation code and its expiry. The main gap is failure modes (already-invited email, seat limits, invalid address), which an agent would want to know before previewing.

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, but the description adds meaning: the role choice is bounded to manager or agent and explicitly never admin, which heads off an invalid role attempt, and the return summary is framed in terms of 'who, as what, seats in use'. It doesn't add anything about email format or the optional name, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 (preview) and resource (inviting a person to this workspace by email) and immediately clarifies the key property: nothing is sent. It explicitly names the sibling it feeds into (invite_member), so an agent can distinguish this dry-run tool from the real mutation without opening either 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?

The 'without sending anything' framing plus 'a confirmation code valid for 10 minutes for invite_member' makes the intended workflow (preview first, then invite_member) clear. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. whether to skip this when a valid confirmation code already exists, so it's strong context rather than a complete when/when-not rule set.

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

All Send4 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