Lemonvite

Invite contacts

lemonvite_invite_contacts

Destructive

Use this when the user wants people from their Lemonvite contact list added to an invitation's guest list, e.g. "find Alice in my contacts and invite her". Find contact_ids with lemonvite_search_contacts first; this tool takes the saved name, email and phone from the contact, so never retype them. Up to 50 contacts per call. It behaves like lemonvite_add_guests: already-invited contacts fail alone, the guest_limit applies, and published phone overages return payment_required for the whole call with none of its guests saved. Explain the credit cost and new phone allowance. If needed: Buy the creditsToBuy shortfall with lemonvite_start_checkout without event_id. Then retry with authorized_credits after explicit host confirmation. On a published invitation the added contacts are invited immediately. Contacts with a phone number require host_confirms_sms_consent=true, meaning the host confirmed they agreed to receive SMS about this event.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event_id`	Yes	Lemonvite event_id returned by lemonvite_create_invitation or lemonvite_list_invitations. Identifies the event to act on; not a guest invitation_id or RSVP URL.
`contact_ids`	Yes	1–50 contact_ids returned by lemonvite_search_contacts. Each becomes a guest on this invitation.
`authorized_credits`	No	Maximum shared account credits the host explicitly agreed to spend across this entire request. Default 0: return payment_required without spending. Explain the credits used and the increased phone allowance, and obtain confirmation before setting this.
`host_confirms_sms_consent`	No	Set true only when the host confirms these contacts agreed to receive SMS about this event. Required when any contact has a phone number.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`added`	Yes
`failed`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`guest_count`	Yes
`credits_used`	Yes
`payment_required`	No	Present when the batch needs phone allowance credits the call did not authorize. No guest was saved.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial operational detail beyond them: the 50-contact cap, that already-invited contacts fail alone, guest_limit enforcement, all-or-nothing payment_required on published phone overages, immediate invitation on published events, and the SMS-consent gate. This is exactly the kind of failure-mode disclosure that helps an agent call safely.

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?

The most important routing information (when to use, search first) is front-loaded, and the error/credit/SMS handling follows logically. It is dense and slightly long, with a couple of details that echo the schema (the 50-contact limit), but nearly every sentence carries operational weight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, credit-consuming, multi-step tool, the description covers prerequisites, error semantics, credit/consent workflow, and side effects. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be re-explained, and nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter (baseline 3). The description adds value beyond it by explaining that the saved name/email/phone are pulled from the contact and must not be retyped, and by describing the authorized_credits retry workflow and host_confirms_sms_consent trigger condition.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: adding people from the Lemonvite contact list to an invitation's guest list, with a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like lemonvite_add_guests and lemonvite_search_contacts.

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?

It opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger, mandates lemonvite_search_contacts as the source of contact_ids, and explains the relationship to lemonvite_add_guests. It also routes the credit shortfall case to lemonvite_start_checkout with the exact conditions (no event_id, retry with authorized_credits after host confirmation).

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

All Lemonvite 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?