Send an email invitation to add a customer to an ElevenLabs workspace, with optional seat type, permissions, usage limit, and group assignments.
Invite User
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email of the customer | ||
| group_ids | No | ||
| seat_type | No | Seat types for workspace members. | |
| usage_limit | No | ||
| workspace_permission | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation, but the description doesn't elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or what happens on duplicate invites. For a mutation tool with annotations, some behavioral context is provided by annotations, but description adds nothing.
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 a single, overly terse phrase that fails to convey necessary information. It is concise but at the cost of being unhelpful; structure is minimal.
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 tool with 5 parameters, 1 required, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, usage, or parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
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 40% (only email and seat_type have descriptions), so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters like group_ids, usage_limit, and workspace_permission. It provides no parameter meaning at all, leaving significant gaps.
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 'Invite User' merely restates the tool name without adding a verb-resource clarification or scope. It doesn't differentiate from sibling invite tools like invite_users_bulk or delete_invite. Tautological.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus invite_users_bulk or other invite-related tools. No context or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.