team.invitations.deleteRevoke a team invitation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invitationId | Yes | Invitation ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| http_status | Yes | HTTP status of the API response |
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?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already discloses that this is a destructive operation. The description's 'Revoke' is consistent with that and adds slight context about the nature of the action, but does not go beyond the annotation. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects) are disclosed, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the exact action without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and a clear destructive action, this description is sufficient. An output schema exists (though not shown in the prompt), so return values are covered. The description covers the core purpose, and annotations handle safety semantics. Minor missing details like idempotency are not critical for this simple operation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter invitationId is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('revoke') and resource ('team invitation'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like team.invitations.create and team.invitations.list. The action is unambiguous and cannot be confused with other tools.
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?
While the description does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the purpose is so self-evident from the tool name and description that an agent would know to use it for canceling an invitation. The sibling list reinforces that this is the delete operation for invitations, but explicit routing guidance is absent, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.