Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

invites

GET /invites — List your invites

List the referral invites credited to you. Two source types appear:

  • manual — invites you sent via POST /invites (the explicit email-an-invitee flow).

  • permaCode — applicants who signed up through your shareable permacode link (GET /invites/permacode).

Each record tracks where the prospective member is in the funnel (new → invited → started → submitted → approved/rejected/expired), the invite type, the invitee's name + email, and timestamps. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (1-100).
cursorNoCursor from a previous response's `nextCursor`. Pass to fetch the next page.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states it is a read-only GET endpoint, lists the funnel statuses, and describes the fields in each record. As no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavioral traits, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits.

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?

The description is well-structured with markdown for lists and code references. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant sentences. Slightly verbose due to detailed funnel explanation, but still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the data returned (funnel status, invite type, invitee info, timestamps), pagination via cursor, and the two source types, leaving no significant gaps.

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%, with both parameters (limit, cursor) well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional value beyond the schema for understanding the parameters, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'List your invites' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing invites_create and invites_permacode, and explains the two source types (manual, permaCode) that appear.

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?

The description explains what the tool does (list referral invites) and implicitly distinguishes from related endpoints by mentioning the other endpoints for creating invites or fetching permacode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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

All DC Member API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources