fynk MCP

Join document

join-document

DestructiveIdempotent

Joins a document as a collaborator. If the current user is already an owner or collaborator on the document, they have already joined it: the tool returns their existing document user unchanged.

Use this tool when:

You need to make changes to a document, but do not have a 'document user' in the document yet.
You need to make changes to a document, but your existing 'document user' does not yet have permission to change it.

To join every document matching some conditions, find them with list-documents and filter_joined=false, which leaves out the documents you have already joined.

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": {
      "document_uuid": "<document_uuid>"
    },
    "name": "join-document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the document to join. If you don't already have the document's UUID, use the list-documents tool to find it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name of the document user
`email`	No	Email of the document user
`party_uuid`	No	UUID of the party this user belongs to. Absent when they belong to none. Do not show to the user (as the raw UUID) unless they ask for it
`_entity_type`	No	Only relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user
`internal_user`	No	true if the user has a fynk user in this account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces idempotency by saying an existing document user is returned unchanged, which is genuine added context. However, it never explains what the 'destructive' side actually is (granting oneself collaborator access, creating a persistent document user visible to others) or what permissions are required to join. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but incomplete on the risk side.

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?

Front-loaded statement followed by scannable condition bullets and a bulk-operation pointer; every sentence has a job. Slightly verbose repetition of the list-documents guidance that also appears in the schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description still usefully notes the unchanged-return case. For a single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage the definition is close to complete, missing only the nature of the access grant it performs.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself already telling the agent to use list-documents when the UUID is unknown. The description adds no format or constraint detail for document_uuid, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Joins a document as a collaborator') and immediately clarifies the already-joined case. The usage bullets implicitly separate it from update-document (change a document only after you hold a document user) and the closing line routes bulk operations to list-documents.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets give two concrete preconditions: no document user yet, or an existing document user lacks permission. It also names the alternative path for joining in bulk (list-documents with filter_joined=false), so when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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

All fynk MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?