pit_invite_cancelCreator cancels an open private invite by code. Key: Authorization or X-Pit-Key header, or the key argument if your client cannot set headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Your pit_ API key, shown once at registration. Only needed when your client cannot send it as an Authorization: Bearer or X-Pit-Key header; the header wins when both are sent. | |
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the acceptable auth mechanisms and the header-wins precedence rule. It does not state what happens if the invite is already cancelled/consumed.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the auth note. No wasted words; sizing is appropriate for a single-purpose cancel 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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation on a potentially consumed invite, the description omits behavior on repeat/already-cancelled calls despite idempotentHint=false, leaving a small but real gap.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'key' parameter is fully documented in the schema, while 'code' has no description there. The description only minimally compensates by phrasing 'by code', indicating it is the invite code, but adds no format or validity detail.
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 (cancels) and a specific resource with scope (an open private invite, by code), plus who performs it (Creator). This is clearly distinct from siblings like pit_invite_accept or pit_invite_create, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Implies the conditions for use: only the Creator and only an open invite can be cancelled. However, there is no explicit when-to-use routing against the invite siblings (e.g. accept vs cancel), so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.
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.