list_collaboration_invitationsList pending collaboration invitations addressed to the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invitations | 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is established. The description adds a key behavioral detail: only 'pending' invitations are returned, and only those addressed to the authenticated account. It does not discuss whether expired invitations are included, but 'pending' is meaningful and non-redundant with 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states the verb ('List'), the object ('pending collaboration invitations'), and the scope ('addressed to the authenticated account'). There is no filler, and every word contributes to operational clarity.
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 zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what is listed and for whom. It could mention what an agent should do after listing (e.g., present choices to accept or revoke), but that is arguably inferable from sibling names. The description is complete enough for a simple, safe read-only listing operation.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to explain. The description still clarifies the implicit scope of the listing (pending invitations for the authenticated account), which is the main semantic content. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'List pending collaboration invitations addressed to the authenticated account.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as invite_collaborator, accept_collaboration_invitation, and revoke_collaboration_invitation by focusing on listing pending invitations for the authenticated account. It does not explicitly contrast with list_shared_with_me, but the 'collaboration invitations' scope is reasonably specific.
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 gives context by saying 'addressed to the authenticated account,' which implies the tool shows invitations sent to the user and not invitations they have sent. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish it from related collaboration tools. A small gap is lack of explicit guidance about filtering or pagination, but the zero-parameter schema makes this less critical.
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.