Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vicarius vRx MCP Server

Vicarius vRx MCP Server

by Space-C0wboy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

user_invitation_search

Search for user invitation events by query parameters. Returns paginated results with optional sorting and field selection.

Instructions

user_invitation · POST /userInvitation/search — Returns events Required: q, from, size.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "user_invitation_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoquery param q (str)
sortNoquery param sort (str)
groupNoquery param group (str)
from_Noquery param from (int)
sizeNoquery param size (int)
includeFieldsNoquery param includeFields (str)
bodyNoJSON request body

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Only basic endpoint info and required parameters are mentioned.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (one sentence) but includes redundancy (e.g., repeats the tool name and endpoint). It is not structured with sections or bullet points, which could improve readability.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nature of 'events', result format, pagination, or any other contextual details needed for effective use.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description only reiterates required parameters without adding semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns events related to user invitations via a POST endpoint, which is somewhat clear. However, 'events' is vague and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like user_invitation_search_by_fields.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_invitation_search_by_fields or insertion tools. The description fails to provide context for appropriate usage.

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