Accept an organization invite using the token from an invite link. Binds to YOUR authenticated FindAgent email — a token sent to a different email (or an expired/reused token) is rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The raw invite token. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses important behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: the token binds to the authenticated email, and tokens sent to other emails, expired tokens, or reused tokens are rejected. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is consistent with this mutating action.
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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical constraint about email binding and token validity follows immediately.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where the token comes from, and the key failure conditions. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 already documents token with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying it is the raw token from an invite link and by explaining validity constraints such as email binding and expiry/reuse rejection.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Accept an organization invite' using the invite token. It also adds a key scoping detail—binding to the authenticated FindAgent email—which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like invite_member or leave_org.
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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you have a token from an organization invite link. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is unique enough among siblings that the context is sufficient.
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.
Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.
Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.
The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.
