Hook Detector

view_team_invite

What an invite joins, before accepting: the team's name, who invited you, its seats, when the link expires, and whether you are signed in with the invited email (null for an account with no email). Free. Same as GET /v1/team/invites/{token}.

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": "view_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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: 'Free' discloses that no credits are consumed, the field list reveals the read-only result shape, 'null for an account with no email' documents an edge case, and the GET mapping signals a safe read. It omits authentication expectations (why api_key is optional) and any rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence plus two short fragments, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by the cost and endpoint equivalence. The opening 'What an invite joins' is slightly elliptical, 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?

For a small read tool with an output schema and one required parameter, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers contents, cost, the no-email edge case, and REST equivalence. The only real gap is auth/where the api_key fits, but that is minor given the output schema handles return values.

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?

The description never mentions the token or api_key parameters directly. However, references to 'the link' and 'the invited email' corroborate that the token comes from an invite link, and the schema already documents the token as 'the hdt_... token, the part of the link after #'. With 50% coverage this is adequate but adds little beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific operation — previewing a team invite — and enumerates exactly what is returned (team name, inviter, seats, expiry, signed-in email match). The phrase 'before accepting' implicitly distinguishes it from accept_team_invite, though the verb 'view' is only carried by the tool name rather than stated in prose.

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?

'What an invite joins, before accepting' establishes clear context: call this in the pre-acceptance step, then act on the invite. It does not explicitly name accept_team_invite/revoke_team_invite as alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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?