RooQuiz

Invite member

invite_member

Destructive

Invite someone to the active team (tenant) by email. The pending membership is created immediately and an invitation email with a join link is queued for delivery; the link and its token are never returned in the tool result. Only the team owner or an admin can invite; the call is rejected for other roles. role defaults to "member" and may be "viewer" (read-only) or "admin". You cannot invite someone as the owner. Fails if the email is already a member or already has a pending invite, or if the team has hit its member limit. Operates on the team this token currently targets — use list_my_tenants / switch_active_tenant to change teams first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Role to grant. Defaults to "member": "viewer" is read-only, "admin" manages the whole team. Cannot be "owner".
`email`	Yes	Email address of the person to invite.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Role granted by the invite
`email`	No	Address the invite was sent to
`membershipId`	No	The created membership record
`invitationQueued`	No	Always true — the invitation email has been queued for delivery, not yet confirmed sent
`isUserRegistered`	No	Whether that address already had a RooQuiz account

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / invitationQueued

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Always true — the invitation email has been queued for delivery, not yet confirmed sent",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / invitationSent

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Whether the invitation email was sent successfully",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / invitationSent

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether the invitation email was sent successfully",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / inviteToken

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Token embedded in the invite link",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / inviteUrl

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The invite link that was emailed — you may relay it to the user",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / role / description

Previous value: -"Role to grant. Defaults to \"member\". \"admin\" can only be granted by the team owner."New value: +"Role to grant. Defaults to \"member\": \"viewer\" is read-only, \"admin\" manages the whole team. Cannot be \"owner\"."

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond these: it explains the side effects ('pending membership is created immediately and an invitation email with a join link is queued'), the fact that the link/token is never returned, and role restrictions. This goes beyond the annotations to set accurate expectations, without contradicting them.

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?

The description is longer than minimal but every sentence carries essential information: action, side effects, restrictions, failure conditions, and contextual preparation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands logically. While it could be trimmed slightly, the density of useful content justifies the length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's side effects and role-based restrictions, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use it, prerequisites, failure modes, and the non-return of sensitive data. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without needing to infer anything beyond what is stated, making it fully complete for its complexity.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the meaning of each role enum value: 'viewer' is read-only, 'admin' manages the whole team, and 'owner' is explicitly excluded. It also confirms the default for 'role'. This enhances the schema without redundancy.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Invite someone to the active team (tenant) by email.' It specifies the exact scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like switch_active_tenant and list_my_tenants by focusing on the invitation action. The verb 'invite' and object 'team' are precise, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including role requirements ('Only the team owner or an admin can invite'), failure conditions ('Fails if the email is already a member...'), and how to prepare the correct context ('use list_my_tenants / switch_active_tenant to change teams first'). This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about when or how to invoke the tool.

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

All RooQuiz 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?