list_invitationsList invitations you received or sent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | summary omits body and author metadata from each item. | full |
| limit | No | Page size, 1 to 50. | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from the previous page. | |
| direction | No | Invitations sent to you, or ones you sent. | received |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, no note on what a 'full' vs 'summary' listing returns – so it is essentially a restatement of the name.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ('received or sent') is front-loaded. It is terse, though arguably at the cost of any useful detail.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the essentials are present, but the description never indicates that results are paginated via cursor nor what a listed invitation contains. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 100% (view, limit, cursor, direction all documented, including enum meanings and paging limits), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the direction concept already defined in the schema and adds no syntax or format 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?
The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('invitations') plus the scope ('received or sent'), so an agent can identify it immediately. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as respond_invitation or list_dms, but the resource noun makes the target unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'received or sent' signals this is the read-side counterpart to respond_invitation/invite, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or what alternatives exist. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.