Flow Boards MCP Server

invite_user

Invite a new user by sending an email invitation. Provide the email address to grant access.

Instructions

Send an invitation to a new user.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "invite_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email address to invite

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool's purpose ('Send an invitation') without providing additional context such as whether an email is sent, permissions are required, or what happens if the email is already registered. No value is added beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description provides a basic understanding of the action. However, it omits any mention of side effects, return values, or authorization requirements, leaving the agent with limited information about what happens upon invocation. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already fully documents the 'email' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not need to repeat parameter information.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Send an invitation') and the target ('a new user'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_users or get_user. It precisely conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is used to invite new users, and it is the only invite-related tool among siblings. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions such as whether the user must not already exist.

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