Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

invites_create

POST /invites — Send an invite

Send a referral invite to someone. The server queues a templated email (delivered via a background task) that points the invitee at the apply flow with you pre-credited as the referrer. The created invite shows up in GET /invites immediately at status new.

⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesInvitee email address. Where the invite email is sent.
whyDCNoOptional. Short note about why they would be a good fit for DC — surfaces in the admin review queue if the application reaches it.
fullNameYesInvitee full name. Used in the email greeting + matched against existing applications for dedup.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Explicitly states it is a WRITE operation, mutates DC account data, queues an email, and the invite appears immediately with status 'new'. No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden.

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?

Well-structured with title, description, effects, and warning. Not overly verbose but contains multiple sentences; could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Covers key aspects: return behavior (invite shows in GET /invites), email delivery via background task, and immediate status. No output schema, but description sufficiently explains outcomes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Adds meaning beyond the schema: email as destination, fullName used in greeting and dedup, whyDC as optional note for admin queue. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it sends an invite (POST /invites) and specifies the action: queue a templated email, pre-credit as referrer, and immediate status 'new'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like alerts_create or events.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Explicitly says when to use (send an invite) but does not mention alternatives or when not to use. No direct sibling for invites_create exists, but guidance on when to use other invite-related tools (e.g., GET /invites) is missing.

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