list_team_invitationsList the team invitations the user has received and not accepted yet. Accept one with accept_team_invitation.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_team_invitations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully provided structurally. The description adds the useful filter constraint (unaccepted only) but says nothing about result ordering, count limits, or what fields an invitation carries.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The scope constraint is front-loaded and the routing hint follows immediately.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose and next action. With no output schema, it could say more about what each invitation includes (id, team name, inviter, expiry), but the gap is modest for a tool this simple.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related omissions exist.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the team invitations') and narrows scope with 'received and not accepted yet', which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_invites and list_members. It stops just short of explicitly naming those siblings.
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?
Gives a clear usage context (pending invitations the user has received) and an explicit next-step alternative: 'Accept one with accept_team_invitation.' It does not state when not to use this tool versus list_invites or list_organization_members.
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.