Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

share_workspace

Invite a human (by email) to a workspace at a specified role. If the email already belongs to a Dock user they're added immediately and a notification email is sent; if not, a 7-day invite token is minted that auto-accepts on magic-link sign-in. Editor role required on the workspace. Emits member.joined (existing user) or member.invited (new user). Use update_workspace_member to change a role afterwards, remove_workspace_member to revoke.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoRole to grant. Defaults to `editor`. Owner-tier transitions require an owner caller.
slugYesThe workspace slug. Accepts either the bare slug ('my-workspace') or the org-prefixed form ('my-org/my-workspace') as shown in the dashboard URL; both resolve to the same workspace.
emailYesEmail address of the human to invite.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It richly details the behavior: immediate addition vs. 7-day invite token for new users, auto-accept on magic-link sign-in, editor role requirement, and emitted events (member.joined/member.invited). This goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then explains edge-case behavior, prerequisites, events, and alternatives. Every sentence adds critical information without fluff or redundancy.

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 and 3 parameters, the description covers the full context: workflow differences for existing vs. new users, token expiration, prerequisites, emitted events, and explicit pointers to related tools. This is a complete operational guide within the description.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (role default, slug formats, email purpose). The tool description does not add new parameter meanings beyond what the schema states; it focuses on behavioral aspects, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Invite') plus a clear resource ('a human (by email) to a workspace at a specified role'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_workspace_member and remove_workspace_member by naming them explicitly as alternatives for subsequent actions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (inviting a human) and names alternative tools for related operations ('Use update_workspace_member to change a role afterwards, remove_workspace_member to revoke'). It also specifies a prerequisite (Editor role required on the workspace), providing clear usage context.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources