revoke_collaboration_invitationRevoke an exact invitation issued from the authenticated workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invitationId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revoked | Yes | ||
| invitationId | 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": {
+ "invitationId": {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "revoked": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "revoked",
+ "invitationId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is scoped to an exact invitation from the authenticated workspace, but it doesn't elaborate on consequences, reversibility, or idempotency behavior beyond what annotations already signal. No contradiction with 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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the exactness requirement, and the workspace scope. It is appropriately sized for a narrow two-parameter 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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple operation. However, the unexplained idempotencyKey is a real gap: an agent may know the tool is destructive but not know how to supply a valid idempotency key. The description also leaves the distinction from revoke_collaborator implicit.
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 needed to explain the parameters. The phrase 'exact invitation' loosely suggests invitationId, but idempotencyKey's purpose and generation are completely unexplained. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 names a specific verb and object: 'Revoke an exact invitation issued from the authenticated workspace.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like revoke_collaborator by targeting an invitation rather than an active collaborator.
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 clear usage context: this applies only to a specific, exact invitation and only to invitations issued from the authenticated workspace. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope is clear and excludes looking up or accepting invitations.
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.