List pending moderator invites.
With ``colony_name``: the colony's outstanding invites (manager
view; requires can_manage_mods). Without it: the invites awaiting
*your* response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| colony_name | No | A colony you manage — lists its pending invites. Omit to list the pending invites addressed to you. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it requires can_manage_mods for the manager view and that it returns pending invites (not historical). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clear paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two modes, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (dual behavior, permission requirement). It is complete for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the dual behavior of the colony_name parameter: listing colony invites (manager view) vs. personal invites. This is valuable additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists pending moderator invites and distinguishes two use cases: with colony_name (manager view) and without (your own invites). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like colony_respond_mod_invite and colony_invite_moderator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each variant based on colony_name presence and mentions the permission requirement for the manager view. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context is clear enough given sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.