Burs-IA

Prepare outbound invitation

prepare_outbound_invitation

Prepare a local, never-sent invitation candidate for a known public HTTPS target (see agent_collaboration_request, human_bridge_request).

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "https://example.org/a2a",
      "agentId": "agent-example-01",
      "message": "Public interoperability invitation.",
      "permissionBasis": "public_machine_endpoint"
    },
    "name": "prepare_outbound_invitation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target`	Yes	HTTPS target URL. Private/local targets are rejected.
`agentId`	No	Optional public-safe agent identifier. When supplied it is bound into the exact action digest.
`message`	Yes	Public-safe invitation text; no secrets or personal data.
`permissionBasis`	Yes	Documented basis for preparing the candidate.
`operatorOrganizationIdentifier`	No	Optional public-safe operator/organization identifier; do not send personal data.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description's "local, never-sent" is the crucial addition — it confirms no network egress occurs and the artifact is only a candidate, which an agent cannot infer from the flags alone. It still omits lifecycle details (where the candidate is stored, whether it persists, and that a separate send step is required), which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the operative constraint (local, never sent) and the target restriction front-loaded. Zero redundant phrasing; the sibling references are parenthetical rather than competing with the core statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey purpose and safety profile, and it does both in one line. The remaining gap is the handoff story — how the prepared candidate is later sent or retrieved — which matters for a tool whose whole point is a non-sending staging step.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented with constraints, patterns, and an enum. The description only reinforces the target restriction ("known public HTTPS target"), adding essentially nothing beyond the schema's own "Private/local targets are rejected" text. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and artifact ("Prepare ... invitation candidate") plus its key scope constraints ("local, never-sent", "known public HTTPS target"). The cross-references to agent_collaboration_request and human_bridge_request hint at how it differs from those siblings, but the relationship is left implicit ("see" rather than "unlike X").

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?

Usage context is implied: prepare a candidate for a public HTTPS target before any actual outreach, with agent_collaboration_request and human_bridge_request named as related tools. However, it never states when to pick this tool over those two, nor any prerequisite or when-not condition beyond the public-target restriction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Burs-IA tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?