Generate a secure invite link for a new team member with selected permissions and link expiry, enabling controlled access to a shared project folder for real-time collaboration.
Generate an invite link for a new team member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email of the person to invite | ||
| permissions | Yes | Permissions to grant | |
| expires_in_days | No | Link expiry in days (default: 7) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool creates an invite link but omits meaningful side effects: whether an email is sent to the invitee, whether permissions apply immediately, whether the link expires silently, or what the response format is. For a tool with side effects (granting access), this is a notable gap.
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, efficient sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action. It's concise but borders on under-specification given the tool's side effects, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
The tool has meaningful side effects (inviting a member and granting permissions) yet has no annotations and only a one-sentence description. There is no coverage of return values, side effects, or edge cases. For a tool of this complexity, the description is too thin to be considered complete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including the enum options (read/write/admin) and the default for expires_in_days (7). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('invite link for a new team member'), making the tool's function clear. It is inherently distinguishable from siblings like revoke_access and list_members, though it doesn't explicitly name them. A 4 is appropriate since the purpose is unambiguous even without explicit sibling differentiation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the purpose is self-evident from the description and the sibling set (revoke_access, who_is_online) makes the intended context inferable. Usage is implied rather than stated, so a 3 is fair.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.