Skip to main content
Glama

request group join

horizon_request_group_join
Idempotent

Confirms a player's explicit group join request using the exact reviewed group revision, atomically creating the join request and leader Inbox notice.

Instructions

Applies the explicit request group join 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: Creates a join request and ordinary leader 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
expectedRevisionYesExact reviewed revision; never replace automatically after an uncertain response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.9.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the atomic creation of a join request and leader Inbox notice, same-revision replay safety, no automatic retry, auth requirements, rate-limit handling, and detailed error reconciliation paths. These details are useful for a mutating, open-world action and align with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 well-structured with Use when, Not for, Requires, Side effects, Returns, and Errors sections. It is somewhat verbose and repeats no-retry and 401 concepts, but most of the length is justified by the mutation/auth/error complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the returned groups/group shape and null cases, and it covers auth, side effects, retry constraints, and key errors. The only notable gap is the mention of a requestId that is absent from the schema, which weakens completeness for parameter-level guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about obtaining sessionToken via sign-in and never auto-replacing expectedRevision, but it also refers to an 'exact pending requestId' that is not present in the input schema, which may confuse parameter usage.

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 first sentence names the action as an explicit request group join using a reviewed revision, which gives a specific verb/resource combination. It does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as horizon_join_group or horizon_accept_group_invite, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 gives a clear 'Use when' condition (player explicitly confirms the action) and explicit exclusions around replacing revisions/request IDs, bypassing leader blocks, and automatic retry. It names horizon_get_groups and horizon_get_group_pending for reconciliation, but it does not directly state when to use this instead of horizon_join_group or accept/decline request siblings.

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