Skip to main content
Glama
ProjectMakersDE

horizOn MCP Server

Official
by ProjectMakersDE
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

accept group request

horizon_accept_group_request
DestructiveIdempotent

Accepts a pending group join request using the reviewed group revision, admitting the exact requester and sending their confirmation atomically.

Instructions

Applies the explicit accept group request action using the reviewed group revision. Use when: the player explicitly confirms this group action. Not for: replacing reviewed revisions/request IDs, bypassing a leader's block, or retrying automatically after uncertainty. Requires: userId and the player's session: sign in with horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous and pass its accessToken as sessionToken. Current group revision and the exact pending requestId where applicable. Side effects: Leader/officer admits this exact requester and sends their ordinary confirmation atomically. No automatic retry. Same-revision replay cannot create a second effect. Returns: {groups:MyGroupsView,group:GroupView|null}. groups is the actor's complete snapshot, never the target's private state. group is null after leave/delete; nonmembers never receive private data. Replace only the matching host/project/player cache. Errors: Use horizon_get_groups and horizon_get_group_pending to reconcile state. 409 REVISION_CONFLICT or uncertain response: read and reconcile intent, never refresh the revision and repeat automatically. Pending decisions require the original requestId; REQUEST_NOT_FOUND means it was removed/replaced. INBOX_FULL rolls back the entire action. 403 rejects group role, session or bilateral block violations. 429 is reported without automatic retry. 401 means the session is missing or expired: sign in again and retry with the new accessToken. 403 for a session means the token belongs to another user: pass the userId that signed in. Needs HORIZON_API_KEY. Every failure returns an error result (isError) with the HTTP status and body: a 401 that horizon_test_connection also returns means HORIZON_API_KEY is wrong, 429 means the account's per-minute rate limit was reached (wait a minute, then retry).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesSigned-in player matching the Bearer session
groupIdYesExact group UUID in the current project; never an authorization credential
requestIdYesExact pending identity from the reviewed snapshot
sessionTokenYesPlayer accessToken, sent only in Authorization
targetUserIdYesOther player in this project
expectedRevisionYesExact reviewed revision; never replace automatically after an uncertain response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses atomic admission and confirmation, no automatic retry, same-revision replay safety, return shape, and a detailed error-handling model. These details materially help an agent understand a destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured and front-loaded with purpose, usage, requirements, side effects, returns, and errors. It is long, especially in the error section, but most content is useful for this complex mutation tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given six required parameters, no output schema, and destructive/idempotent annotations, the description is complete: it explains authentication, side effects, return shape, idempotency behavior, and recovery from conflicts and errors.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters well. The description reinforces key constraints around sessionToken, expectedRevision, and requestId, but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly names the action as accepting a group request and ties it to the reviewed group revision. It is specific enough to distinguish from related tools like decline_group_request or accept_group_invite, though it does not explicitly contrast those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('the player explicitly confirms this group action') and when not to use it ('replacing reviewed revisions/request IDs, bypassing a leader's block, or retrying automatically after uncertainty'). It also directs reconciliation to horizon_get_groups and horizon_get_group_pending.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools