Oviond

Invite team member

invite_user

Destructive

Invite a new user to join the account. admin has full account access; clients gives read+write to assigned clients; readonly is view-only on assigned clients.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	Role to assign (admin, clients, or readonly)
`email`	Yes	Email address to invite
`clients`	No	Client IDs the user can access, from list_clients (required for the "clients" and "readonly" roles)
`fullname`	Yes	Full name of the invitee
`avatar_url`	No	Optional starting avatar URL or path (e.g. a Media URL)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The invited user — id, email, fullname and role. They stay invite_pending until they accept the emailed invitation.
`success`	Yes	True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "The invited user — id, email, fullname and role. They stay invite_pending until they accept the emailed invitation.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate that this is a mutating and potentially destructive action. The description adds useful access-role semantics (admin, clients, readonly) but does not disclose other behavioral consequences such as whether an invitation email is sent or whether the invitation can be revoked.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second efficiently clarifies role permissions. There is no redundant or filler content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Combined with the detailed input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for the common cases. It could be slightly more complete by noting that the clients parameter is required for the clients and readonly roles, though that is already in the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each role grants: admin has full access, clients has read/write on assigned clients, and readonly is view-only. This helps the agent choose the correct role value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Invite a new user to join the account') and names the resource (user/account). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like update_user or remove_user.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_user or remove_user. The role semantics imply appropriate use for assigning access, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Oviond tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?