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 flag non-idempotent, non-readonly, open-world behavior, and the description adds materially beyond them: the link is a secret key valid 14 days that must only go to the guest, each call mints a new card while old cards stay valid, and only public sessions qualify. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a link-generating mutation.
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?
Front-loaded purpose, then a bracketed composition chain, then a bracketed pitfalls section. Every line earns its place; no filler and the critical warnings are surfaced rather than buried.
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?
Given a 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, the upstream/downstream tool chain, link secrecy, validity window, re-mint semantics, and a session-type gate. An agent can call this correctly without consulting anything else.
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 100% and both parameters are already documented there (guestId sourced from list_activity_guests, activityRef a slug or id). The description reinforces the guestId provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a precise verb+resource: mint a self-service card link for a specific guest, and specifies what the guest can do with it (confirm attendance, edit title/topic, upload avatar and PPT without login). The 【需要登录·主办方】 prefix scopes the actor, distinguishing it from the many other guest-related siblings.
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?
Explicitly lays out the composition chain (list_activity_guests / add_activity_guest → this tool → send_message, with start_conversation for on-site userIds) and states the hard precondition that only public sessions can mint cards. Nothing about when to use or not use it is left to inference.
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.