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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedOutput schema / properties / success / description

Previous value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."

First observedSep 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation profile. The description adds access-level context (admin full access, clients read+write, readonly view-only) but does not disclose the invitation mechanism, such as whether an email is sent or whether the invitee must activate the account.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the role explanation immediately following. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With a rich output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description has less burden. It adequately covers purpose and role semantics, but omits the invite lifecycle (email delivery, activation, revocation path via remove_user) which an agent might reasonably need.

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%, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine value by defining what each role value means (full access, read+write to assigned clients, view-only) beyond the schema's bare enum listing. The clients parameter's conditional requirement is already well documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Invite a new user to join the account', clearly indicating the action and outcome. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling user tools like update_user, remove_user, or list_users, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_user, remove_user, or list_users. The role semantics (admin/clients/readonly) aid role selection within the tool, but provide no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing to sibling tools.

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?