projects.invite_collaboratorCreate or reissue an email invitation for one collaborator on the selected private SparkLaunch project; access begins only after acceptance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Editor | |
| Yes | |||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| confirmation_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavior beyond those flags: an email invitation is created or reissued, and access begins only after acceptance, which explains the delayed effect. It does not detail what the destructive aspect invalidates, but it does not contradict the 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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the acceptance behavior appended after a semicolon. No wasted words.
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?
The core call is clear and an output schema exists, so return values need no description. However, the tool has five parameters and the description does not address the optional but non-obvious confirmation_token and idempotency_key semantics, nor fully explain the destructive side effect beyond 'reissue'.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides semantics for email ('one collaborator') and project_id ('selected private project'), but says nothing about role, idempotency_key, or confirmation_token, leaving three parameters under-explained despite their optionality.
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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Create or reissue an email invitation') and names the target resource ('one collaborator on the selected private SparkLaunch project'), which is clearly distinct from sibling project CRUD tools. It also adds the acceptance-required outcome, making the tool's purpose 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?
It states a clear context: this is for inviting a single collaborator to a private SparkLaunch project, and it clarifies that access is not immediate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no obvious sibling tool competes for this same action.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.