lemonvite_list_invitationsUse this when the user wants to find or review their Lemonvite invitations, or to identify which existing event they are referring to. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| past | Yes | ||
| upcoming | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only behavior is already provided by the readOnlyHint annotation, so the description's 'Read-only.' adds no new information. The phrasing does add minor context about account-scoped invitations and event identification, but it does not disclose any further behavioral details like filtering or listing characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one front-loaded sentence and is easy to scan. The final 'Read-only.' is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the overall text remains efficient and appropriately sized for a simple parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero required parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it states the primary user intent and scope. It does not underexplain the return value because the output schema can carry that. The main missing nuance is a more explicit note on the invitation set or scope boundaries, but that is minor here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly matches a parameterless list/review operation, and since there are no parameters, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description makes the tool's purpose clear: find or review the user's Lemonvite invitations and identify which existing event is being referenced. It differentiates well from get_invitation by emphasizing the plural 'invitations' and the review/identification use case, though it does not explicitly contrast sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly starts with 'Use this when...' and names concrete user intents: finding/reviewing invitations or identifying a referenced event. It gives clear usage context but no exclusions or explicit alternatives, so it stops short of a strong 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.