Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Invite members by email

invite_members
Destructive

Email people an invitation that lets them straight into the group. Admins only. Sends Skool's invitation email to each address, as Invite people, Invite by email does; whoever accepts joins without a membership request. Addresses already in the group are skipped by Skool. Emails reach people outside the group, so by default you confirm each call; you can switch that off for this tool. Waits for the owner's approval.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group": "<group>",
      "emails": "<emails>"
    },
    "name": "invite_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupYesGroup URL name, e.g. 'yourgroup' for skool.com/yourgroup.
emailsYesUp to 50 addresses.
course_idsNoLong course ids to unlock for them on joining (from create_course or get_course).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds real value beyond them: emails leave the platform, existing addresses are skipped by Skool, and a per-call confirmation is on by default. The closing sentence 'Waits for the owner's approval' is ambiguous and sits awkwardly against 'joins without a membership request', leaving the blocking/approval behavior unclear.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the admin gate, and most sentences carry distinct information. The mid-sentence reference to 'as Invite people, Invite by email does' is UI-oriented filler that doesn't help an agent, and the approval clause is tacked on without explaining itself.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the mutation's blast radius, external-recipient risk, skip-existing behavior, and confirmation default — enough to call it safely. What a call returns (partial success, skipped addresses) is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already explains group, the 50-address cap, and course_ids. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and never mentions course_ids at all, so it neither compensates nor detracts — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (email an invitation) and resource (people who join the group), plus the actor restriction 'Admins only' and the resulting effect (joins without a membership request). An agent can distinguish this from approve_membership_request or add_membership_question without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: admin-only, invites people outside the group, and by default requires confirmation per call. It implicitly contrasts with the membership-request flow ('joins without a membership request') but never names a sibling tool to use instead for approving existing requests, so routing guidance is clear but not explicit.

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

All Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
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