Plausible MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Invite guest in Plausible

plausible_invite_guest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Invite guest in the user's own Plausible account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Plausible step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Plausible Cloud Browser. Plausible's official API: Plausible has an official API, but a limited one (checked 22 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

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": "plausible_invite_guest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds the non-obvious fact that no action is performed server-side and that the payload is a UI walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields). That is real context beyond the structured fields, though it does not say how long or structured the returned steps are.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two clauses are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing sentence about Plausible's official API is tangential to invoking this tool and carries a confusing future-checked date ('checked 22 Oct 2026'), which is noise for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it says what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and what to do afterward with the browser tools. Only the reason for the API remark and any limits on the guide's scope are left unexplained.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Invite guest in the user's own Plausible account') and then clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the invite. That clarification rescues what the name alone would mislead on, though the dual framing (imperative name vs. advisory tool) takes a sentence to untangle.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself' and directs the agent to 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Plausible Cloud Browser', which is clear routing to the correct follow-up. No exclusions or alternative Plausible invite paths are mentioned, but the next-step guidance is unambiguous.

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

All Plausible MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?