typst_revoke_invitationWithdraw a pending project invitation by email to cancel access before the recipient accepts.
Withdraw a pending invitation by email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| project_id | Yes | Project ID from typst_list_projects, e.g. 'pAbC123dEf456gHi789jKl' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context that only pending invitations are affected and that the invitation is identified by email, but it doesn't explain what happens if the invitation is not pending or what the response looks like.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the core action and identifier.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations (destructive, idempotent) and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention project_id explicitly, but the schema already provides that context, so the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.
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 50%: project_id is described in the schema, but email only has format constraints. The description's 'by email' adds the semantic that email identifies the invitation to revoke, partially compensating for the gap, but it does not mention project_id or how email and project_id interact.
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 uses a specific verb ('Withdraw') and resource ('pending invitation') with the identifier ('by email'), making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like typst_remove_member or typst_invite_member, though the 'pending' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that this is for cancelling invitations rather than removing existing members or deleting projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.