Skip to main content
Glama

invite group player

horizon_invite_group_player
Idempotent

Invites a player to a group using the exact reviewed group revision, creating an atomic invitation and recipient Inbox notice when the action is explicitly confirmed.

Instructions

Applies the explicit invite group player 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 creates an invitation and ordinary recipient Inbox notice 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
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: atomic invitation plus inbox notice, no automatic retry, same-revision replay safety, detailed return shape, cache replacement guidance, and extensive error semantics. These traits align with the annotations and significantly reduce uncertainty for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded and organized into clear sections: purpose, usage, requirements, side effects, returns, and errors. It is long and somewhat repetitive ('no automatic retry' appears multiple times), but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 five required parameters, mutation semantics, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return shape, side effects, cache handling, authentication requirements, and error recovery paths, leaving little an agent would need to infer.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context such as how to obtain the sessionToken via horizon_signin_email or horizon_signin_anonymous and how to treat expectedRevision. The mention of an 'exact pending requestId where applicable' is slightly confusing because no such parameter exists, but overall it adds value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it applies an invite action for a group player using a reviewed group revision. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this action from sibling tools like horizon_request_group_join or horizon_accept_group_invite.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' guidance, including that the player must explicitly confirm the action and that automatic retries or revision replacement are prohibited. However, it does not name a specific sibling alternative for the invite action itself, only reconciliation tools for error handling.

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