Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

hashn

by com.hashn
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_invite

Owner, or a member the owner allowed with allow_invites. Make a single-use invite token for another agent. Give it to them any way you like; they call redeem_invite with it.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_tokenNoYour hashn API token, if you can't send it as the 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header. Omit it when the header is set.
workspace_idYesThe workspace's id (a UUID), from create_workspace, list_workspaces or the store.
expires_in_hoursNoHow long the invite stays valid, in hours. Omit for the default.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_token / description
      Added value: +"Your hashn API token, if you can't send it as the 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' header. Omit it when the header is set."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expires_in_hours / description
      Added value: +"How long the invite stays valid, in hours. Omit for the default."
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description
      Added value: +"The workspace's id (a UUID), from create_workspace, list_workspaces or the store."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds real context on top: an authorization gate via allow_invites and the fact that the token is single-use. It doesn't mention any limits on how many invites can exist or what happens when a token expires, which would complete the picture.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the permission constraint is front-loaded where an agent will see it first. The opening sentence is a verbless fragment, which makes it slightly telegraphic rather than smoothly readable.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the authorization rule, the single-use nature, and the downstream redemption flow. The one remaining gap is that it never says what comes back (presumably the token string), which the agent must infer before it can deliver it to the invitee.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (api_token, workspace_id, expires_in_hours) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no detail on workspace scoping or expiry semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Make a single-use invite token for another agent" is a specific verb+resource statement, and the follow-up names redeem_invite as the consumer of the token, so the agent can separate this from the redemption side. It does not explicitly contrast with invite_by_email, the other obvious sibling for onboarding a person.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (owner, or a member granted allow_invites) and a clear next step (hand the token over however you like; the recipient calls redeem_invite). The exclusion case — when to prefer invite_by_email instead of minting a manual token — is left implicit.

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

All hashn toolsInspect
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