Hook Detector

accept_team_invite

Join the team an invite names. From then on what you spend comes from the team's pool; your own runs stay private and your own balance waits for you. Each link works once (409 invite_used) for 7 days (410 invite_expired). Needs admin. Free. Same as POST /v1/team/invites/{token}/accept.

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "accept_team_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	the hdt_... token, the part of the link after #
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations, yet the description carries the full burden well: discloses downstream effects (spending from team pool, own runs private, own balance preserved), idempotency/expiry error codes (409 invite_used, 410 invite_expired), admin requirement, and cost (free).

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the join purpose first and constraints following. Every sentence adds value, though the endpoint-equivalence note is somewhat redundant.

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 mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers effects, error states, and prerequisites well. The only gap is the undocumented api_key parameter.

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 already documents the token parameter including its hdt_... format and link-after-# location. The description says nothing about the api_key parameter, so with only 50% coverage it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (join) and resource (the team named by an invite), and disambiguates from siblings like view_team_invite, revoke_team_invite, and invite_to_team.

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?

Clear context that this accepts an invite link and the constraints (one-use link, 7-day expiry, requires admin). It doesn't explicitly point to view_team_invite as the way to inspect before accepting, so not a full 5.

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

All Hook Detector 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?