NotePom

Invite collaborator

invite_collaborator

Idempotent

Invite a collaborator by NotePom username or email. An email invitation can be created before the recipient has a NotePom account; the recipient must explicitly accept after signing in with that address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entityId`	Yes
`identity`	Yes	A NotePom username or an email address. Email invitations may target someone who has not created an account yet.
`entityType`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`email`	No
`expiresAt`	Yes
`deliveryStatus`	Yes
`recipientUserId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "deliveryStatus": {
+      "enum": [
+        "pending",
+        "sent",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "email": {
+      "format": "email",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expiresAt": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recipientUserId": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "deliveryStatus",
+    "expiresAt"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / identity / description

Added value: +"A NotePom username or an email address. Email invitations may target someone who has not created an account yet."

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those flags: email invitations can be created before the recipient has an account, and the recipient must explicitly accept after signing in. This clarifies the invitation lifecycle without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target, followed by a concise and relevant edge-case explanation. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for the core invite behavior and email-specific flow, and an output schema exists. However, it does not explain that the invitation targets a specific note or folder in a workspace or why the idempotencyKey is required. Given five required parameters and low schema coverage, these are meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, with only 'identity' documented. The description reinforces that identity can be a NotePom username or email, but it does not clarify the semantics of workspaceId, entityId, entityType, or idempotencyKey. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more substantially for these required parameters.

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: 'Invite a collaborator by NotePom username or email.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like accept_collaboration_invitation, revoke_collaboration_invitation, and revoke_collaborator by focusing on the initial invitation act.

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?

The description provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, especially by explaining that email invitations can target users without an account and require later acceptance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the acceptance workflow is implied through the phrase 'must explicitly accept,' which distinguishes invitation creation from acceptance.

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

All NotePom tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?