Hook Detector

invite_to_team

Invite someone: returns link (and its token), a single-use page valid 7 days, shown here only, and emailed to that address (emailed true; when false, give the link to the person yourself). Someone signed in with Google must hold that email to accept. Owner only. Needs admin. Free. Same as POST /v1/team/invites.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "invite_to_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	the email of the person invited
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return artifact, its 7-day single-use lifetime, the 'shown here only' visibility rule, the emailed true/false branching, and the Google-account constraint. It does not cover what happens on duplicate invites or how an existing invite should be revoked, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 with the verb and the returned artifact, and every clause carries information. The phrasing is somewhat run-on ('Invite someone: returns link (and its token), a single-use page valid 7 days, shown here only, and emailed to that address...') and the trailing 'Free.' is terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 the description did not need to enumerate return fields, yet it usefully explains them anyway. Combined with the stated permissions and constraints, an agent could call this correctly; only the undocumented 'api_key' parameter is a residual gap.

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 50%: 'email' is documented in the schema, while 'api_key' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's 'emailed true/false' clause refers to a response field rather than an input parameter, so it adds no input-level guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 and resource ('Invite someone') and immediately describes the artifact produced: a single-use invite link with its token. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like accept_team_invite, view_team_invite, and revoke_team_invite, which act on existing invites rather than creating one.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: 'Owner only. Needs admin. Free.' and the fallback behavior when the email fails ('give the link to the person yourself'). It does not explicitly route to alternatives such as revoke_team_invite or accept_team_invite, but the narrow scope makes the intended usage clear.

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?