Planning System MCP Server

invite_member

Add a user to an organization by user ID or email. Requires owner or admin privileges; email-only invites without an existing user return a 404.

Instructions

Add a user to an organization by user_id or email. Caller must be org owner or admin. If email is provided and the user doesn't exist, the API returns 404 (email-invite flow stays UI-only).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organization_id": "<organization_id>"
    },
    "name": "invite_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`organization_id`	Yes
`user_id`	No
`email`	No
`role`	No	member

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authorization requirement and 404 error case, but omits other behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if user already a member.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences efficiently convey the main action, authorization, and an important behavior. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

It lacks description of return value (success response) and puts no detail on which parameter to prefer. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required), it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining organization_id as required, user_id and email as alternative identifiers, and role with default. It lacks explicit enumeration of role options but covers core semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Add a user to an organization by user_id or email.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_member' and 'update_member_role' by specifying the invite action and methods.

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 specifies prerequisites: 'Caller must be org owner or admin.' It also explains the 404 behavior for non-existing email, indicating a limitation. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use user_id vs email or mention any alternatives.

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