Invite multiple users to a workspace at once by supplying their email addresses, with options to assign group IDs, seat types, and usage limits for each new member.
Invite Multiple Users
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | The email of the customer | |
| group_ids | No | ||
| seat_type | No | Seat types for workspace members. | |
| usage_limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral — no mention that invitations send emails, whether seats are consumed, or whether re-inviting is safe.
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?
It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the one sentence conveys no more than the tool name already does.
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 multi-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world write action with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description provides none of the context needed: no seat/role implications, no group assignment semantics, no result information.
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 only 50% (group_ids and usage_limit are undocumented, and emails has a mismatched description saying 'the email of the customer' for an array). The description compensates with zero parameter information, leaving half the inputs unexplained.
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 Multiple Users' largely restates the tool name invite_users_bulk, adding only the word 'Multiple'. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling invite_user, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs.
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 when-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternative (invite_user, for single invitations) is never mentioned. The agent must infer bulk-vs-single selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.