Alias of invite_agent_cosigner. Humans: email → Security UI. Agents: cosignerUserId.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "invite_cosigner"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| nickname | No | ||
| challengeId | No | ||
| cosignerUserId | No | ||
| walletSignature | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that the email path routes to a Security UI. It does not describe permissions, whether the invite is pending, what side effects occur, or how invitations can be revoked.
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 extremely concise and front-loads the alias relationship before the human/agent routing. The arrow notation is slightly cryptic, but there is no wasted wording.
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 five-parameter invite tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is far too sparse. It leaves most parameter semantics and nearly all behavioral context unspecified.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters. It adds meaning for email and cosignerUserId only, leaving nickname, challengeId, and walletSignature completely unexplained, including why challengeId and walletSignature would be needed.
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 says only that this is an alias of invite_agent_cosigner, without independently stating the verb and resource. It relies entirely on the sibling tool's name to convey that this invites a cosigner, so an agent unfamiliar with that sibling gets little purpose information.
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?
It gives some routing guidance by indicating humans should use email and agents should use cosignerUserId. However, it does not explain when to choose this alias over invite_agent_cosigner, nor does it mention exclusions or related invite workflows.
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.