Re-send the invitation email for a still-pending invite, by member ID or email (from list_members). The original accept link is reused. Already-accepted members are rejected. Owner only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Email address (alternative to memberId — targets the first matching pending invite). | ||
| memberId | No | Member record UUID (from list_members). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses important behaviors: the original accept link is reused, already-accepted members are rejected, and only the owner can perform the action. It also implies the side effect of sending an email. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each clause adds meaningful information without repetition or fluff. It is a model of concise yet complete writing.
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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, constraints, side effects, error condition, and permission. It does not specify the response format, but given the absence of an output schema, this is not a critical gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.
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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (email as alternative to memberId, targeting first matching pending invite; memberId as UUID from list_members). The tool description adds little beyond what the schema states, so with 100% coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Re-send the invitation email'), the target ('still-pending invite'), and the means ('by member ID or email (from list_members)'). It also adds distinctive details like reusing the original accept link and rejecting already-accepted members, which differentiates it from sibling tools like invite_member.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use: 'for a still-pending invite' and specifies the exclusion 'Already-accepted members are rejected'. It also notes the permission requirement 'Owner only'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different scenarios, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.
The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.
78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.
The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.
