accept_collaboration_invitationAccept an exact pending collaboration invitation addressed to this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invitationId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | ||
| entityType | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "entityId": {
+ "maxLength": 160,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "entityType": {
+ "enum": [
+ "note",
+ "folder"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workspaceId": {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "workspaceId",
+ "entityType",
+ "entityId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the precondition that the invitation must be 'exact' and 'pending', but does not describe side effects, failure modes, or consequences of acceptance beyond what annotations convey.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the most important qualifiers ('exact', 'pending', 'addressed to this account') are included early. It is appropriately concise for the action described.
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 the required idempotencyKey parameter is completely unexplained and the workflow for obtaining an invitationId is not referenced (e.g., via list_collaboration_invitations), the description is not fully complete. The presence of an output schema helps, but the missing parameter semantics leave a significant gap for an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some context for invitationId by referring to an 'invitation', but it entirely omits the idempotencyKey parameter, its purpose, and how to construct it. The schema only gives format constraints, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly supply both required parameters.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Accept') on a specific resource ('exact pending collaboration invitation addressed to this account'). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like list_collaboration_invitations, invite_collaborator, and revoke_collaboration_invitation by focusing on the acceptance operation.
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 implies usage when an exact pending invitation exists for this account, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it reference sibling tools like list_collaboration_invitations for finding the invitation ID. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.