create_guest_invite_link【需要登录·主办方】给阵容里某位嘉宾铸一张自助卡链接：他免登录打开就能确认出席、改头衔与主题、传头像和 PPT。 【组合链】list_activity_guests / add_activity_guest 拿 guestId → 本工具 → 用户确认后 send_message 发给嘉宾本人（站内有 userId 的先 start_conversation）。 【口径/坑】① 链接即密钥（14 天有效），只发给嘉宾本人，别贴到群里或公开页。② 每次调用都铸一张新卡，旧卡在有效期内仍能用。③ 只有公开场次能铸。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guestId | Yes | 嘉宾 id（list_activity_guests 的 guests[].id） | |
| activityRef | Yes | 活动 slug 或 id（list_my_activities 的返回里都有） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds substantial context beyond them: organizer login requirement, link-as-secret 14-day validity, non-idempotent behavior (each call creates a new card while old cards remain valid), and the public-session restriction. This is rich behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loaded with the required context and purpose, then organized into clear sections for the workflow chain and caveats. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no filler or repetition.
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 create/mint operation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter sourcing, downstream delivery steps, security constraints, validity duration, idempotency behavior, and eligibility restrictions. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and handle the result appropriately.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the source of guestId via list_activity_guests/add_activity_guest, but does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema for activityRef. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb and resource: minting a self-service invite link for a guest in the lineup, with concrete capabilities (confirm attendance, edit title/topic, upload avatar/PPT). It distinguishes this from adjacent actions by explaining the guest-facing link and the surrounding chain, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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 explicitly states the required role and login context, the full workflow (list_activity_guests/add_activity_guest → this tool → send_message/start_conversation), and key conditions: only public sessions can mint, the link is 14-day valid and must go only to the guest. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-share constraints.
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.