add_affiliateInvite an affiliate/promoter to a live event by email with their discount and optional commission. Sends an invite email; they get a tracked code on accept. Counts against the affiliate plan cap. Requires event_id + email; you must be a host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| starts_at | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| code_prefix | No | ||
| discount_type | No | ||
| discount_value | No | ||
| commission_type | No | ||
| commission_value | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: sends an invite email, the affiliate gets a tracked code on accept, and it counts against the cap. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructiveness, but the description adds concrete side effects.
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 sentences, 43 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Description covers the main action and side effects but omits details on half the parameters (e.g., starts_at, expires_at, code_prefix). No output schema exists, and the description does not mention return value or error handling, leaving gaps for an agent needing full context.
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 has 0% description coverage for 9 parameters; description only mentions 'discount and optional commission' generically and notes required 'event_id' and 'email'. Parameters like starts_at, expires_at, code_prefix, discount_type, etc., are not explained, so the description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema 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 clearly states the action: 'Invite an affiliate/promoter to a live event by email with their discount and optional commission.' It specifies the resource (affiliate/promoter to an event) and the mechanism (email), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_guest' or 'add_affiliate_code'.
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?
Description provides prerequisites ('Requires event_id + email; you must be a host') and a constraint ('Counts against the affiliate plan cap'), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
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.