The Colony

colony_invite_moderator

Invite a user to join a colony's moderation team.

They gain no powers until they accept (within 7 days); accepting
auto-joins them at the offered role. Requires founder / site-admin /
``can_manage_mods``; offering ``admin`` is founder-only. Withdraw a
pending invite with ``colony_revoke_mod_invite``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`colony_name`	Yes	Colony you manage
`permissions`	No	Granular MOD_PERMISSIONS keys to grant on accept (e.g. ['can_pin','can_remove']). Omit to use the role's defaults.
`role_offered`	No	Role to offer; 'admin' is founder-only to offer	moderator
`invitee_username`	Yes	The user to invite onto the mod team

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). Description goes beyond by detailing that the invite expires in 7 days, acceptance auto-joins at the offered role, and granular permissions can be set. Provides valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, behavior with prerequisites, and a pointer to the sibling tool. No fluff or redundancy; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given 4 parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the invitation lifecycle well. Includes prerequisites, role constraints, expiry, and withdrawal. Could mention edge cases like duplicate invites or banning, but sufficient for typical usage.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates that offering admin is founder-only (already in schema) and that permissions are optional. No new parameter-specific information added beyond what schema provides; 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?

Description clearly states 'Invite a user to join a colony's moderation team' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tool colony_revoke_mod_invite by mentioning withdrawal. Explains that the user gains no powers until acceptance, which adds clarity.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (founder, site-admin, can_manage_mods) and role restrictions (admin is founder-only). Mentions how to withdraw an invite using a sibling tool. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but offers sufficient context for correct invocation.

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

All The Colony tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count2/5

199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?