Skip to main content
Glama

Create Team Invite

createTeamInvite

Invite one person to a team. Pass processId to invite them to a specific Clarity process instead of the whole team (that requires the team:clarity-member role). Creating the invitation does NOT email anyone — call sendTeamInviteEmail with the returned id to deliver it, or use bulkCreateTeamInvites, which creates and emails in one step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYesTeam role to grant. One of: team:owner, team:superadmin, team:admin (deprecated), team:manager, team:builder, team:member, team:clarity-member. You cannot grant a role above your own. Process invitations must use team:clarity-member.
emailYesEmail address of the person to invite.
team_idNoDuvo team UUID to operate on. API keys are pinned to a single team — omit this (it falls back to the key's team) or pass that same team; a different team is rejected. OAuth callers, who can span multiple teams, should pass the target team here.
processIdNoInvite the person to this Clarity process rather than the whole team. Requires the team:clarity-member role.
process_role_idNoConfigured Process role to assign alongside the Clarity invitation. Requires processId; the role must belong to that Process.
interviewRequestedNoWhether to ask the person to record an interview about the process. Defaults to true. Pass false to give Clarity Member access to the process only; that requires processId and the clarity_invite_without_interview feature flag. Inviting someone already asked for an interview with false keeps the request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / interviewRequested
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Whether to ask the person to record an interview about the process. Defaults to true. Pass false to give Clarity Member access to the process only; that requires processId and the clarity_invite_without_interview feature flag. Inviting someone already asked for an interview with false keeps the request.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / process_role_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Configured Process role to assign alongside the Clarity invitation. Requires processId; the role must belong to that Process.",
      +  "format": "uuid",
      +  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description still adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the invitation is created but no email is sent, plus the role-permission requirement for process invites. It does not cover error/idempotency edge cases beyond what annotations flag.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the scoping parameter, then the delivery workflow. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it partially compensates by referencing 'the returned id', implying an id is returned, but does not describe the full response shape. For a 6-param mutation tool with full annotation coverage the essential calling guidance is present.

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%, so the schema already documents role, team_id, processId, process_role_id and interviewRequested in detail. The description reinforces processId's semantics and the role coupling but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Invite one person to a team') and immediately scopes the two variants (whole-team vs. process-level via processId). It names the sibling tools bulkCreateTeamInvites and sendTeamInviteEmail, so an agent can distinguish this from them without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: condition for processId (invite to a specific process, requires team:clarity-member), the fact that this tool does NOT deliver email, and the two follow-up alternatives (sendTeamInviteEmail with the returned id, or bulkCreateTeamInvites for one-step create-and-email). When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources