Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

撤回点名邀请

revoke_organization_member_invite
DestructiveIdempotent

【需要登录·OWNER/ADMIN】撤回一条还没回应的点名邀请,对方就接受不了了。撤回前跟用户确认是哪一位。 【组合链】list_organization_member_invites 拿 inviteId → 本工具。 【口径/坑】① 已接受/已拒绝/已过期的撤不了(organization_member_invite_unavailable);重复撤回幂等。② 对方已经收到的那条推送收不回来。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inviteIdYes邀请 id
organizationIdYes组织 id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, yet the description adds substantive context beyond them: the role/auth prerequisite, the state precondition, the concrete error code for unavailable invites, confirmation that repeat calls are idempotent, and the non-recallable push notification side effect. Nothing here merely restates an annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the two constraints that matter most (login/role and purpose), then chain, then gotchas, using consistent bracketed sections. Information-dense with no filler; each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: auth, prerequisite state, workflow chain, failure mode, idempotency behavior, and external side effects. There is no material gap left for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both fields have minimal descriptions, so the schema baseline would be 3. The description adds real value by documenting where inviteId comes from (list_organization_member_invites), turning an opaque id into a discoverable value, though it says nothing extra about organizationId.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (revoke an invite) with scope narrowed to invites that have not been responded to, and notes the consequence (recipient can no longer accept). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_organization_member (members, not invites) and respond_organization_invite (the recipient's side).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gates usage on login and OWNER/ADMIN role, prescribes the confirmation step before acting, and names the exact workflow chain (list_organization_member_invites → this tool). It also states when the tool does NOT work (accepted/declined/expired), which is exactly the when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources