Delete Existing Invitation. Invalidates an existing email invitation. The invitation will still show up in the inbox it has been delivered to, but activating it to join the workspace won't work. This endpoint may only be called by workspace members with the WORKSPACE_MEMBERS_INVITE permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Delete Existing Invitation' and 'Invalidates,' indicating a destructive mutation, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction, so the transparency score is 1. The side-effect note about the invitation still appearing in the inbox is useful, but it cannot override the contradiction.
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?
Three terse sentences: direct action statement, key behavioral caveat, and permission constraint. No filler, redundancy, or 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 description covers the main effect and permission requirement but leaves the 'account' parameter ambiguous and does not mention response behavior or edge cases. Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, and the description only loosely maps to the email parameter via 'email invitation.' The 'account' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter descriptions.
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?
Description opens with 'Delete Existing Invitation' and clarifies 'Invalidates an existing email invitation,' giving a specific verb+resource. It clearly targets invitation deletion rather than member removal or other workspace management tools, distinguishing it from siblings like elevenlabs_remove_member.
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?
The permission constraint is explicit: 'may only be called by workspace members with the WORKSPACE_MEMBERS_INVITE permission.' However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, and it does not mention related tools like elevenlabs_invite_user or elevenlabs_remove_member, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.