list_invitesCheck comparison invites you have sent, view statuses (pending, clicked, started, completed), and filter by status to monitor progress.
List comparison invites the user has sent and each one's status: pending, clicked, started or completed. Read-only; costs 1 unit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return (1-50, default 20). | |
| status | No | Filter by status. | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +20Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum rows to return (1-50, default 20)."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / status / defaultAdded value: +"all"Input schema / properties / status / descriptionAdded value: +"Filter by status."Input schema / properties / status / enumAdded value: +[
+ "all",
+ "pending",
+ "clicked",
+ "started",
+ "completed"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the cost ('costs 1 unit') and scoping the operation to invites 'the user has sent,' which is useful behavioral context.
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?
A single sentence conveys purpose, scope, output, and cost with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, status values, and cost; the only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the return structure is not described, but the status list provides enough context.
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 the schema already documents limit and status fully. The description mentions statuses but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('comparison invites the user has sent'), and the key output dimension (status). It is easily distinguished from siblings like invite_person, which creates invites, and list_relationships, which covers a different resource.
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?
The description implies usage: call this to view invites the user has sent and their statuses. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions, so the guidance is present but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.