Invite a user to your tailnet by entering their email and selecting a role. This generates an invitation that grants access and sets permissions.
Create a new user invite that allows someone to join your tailnet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Role to assign to the invited user (default: member) | |
| No | Email address to send the invite to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It merely repeats the 'create' action already implied by the name.
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?
One sentence, 13 words, no unnecessary information. Conciseness is excellent.
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 create operation with fully described parameters, the description is barely adequate. It does not explain return behavior (no output schema), error cases, or idempotency (already hinted false). Could be improved with minimal context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new user invite that allows someone to join your tailnet.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (user invite), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_device_invite' and 'list_user_invites'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to invite a user vs. invite a device). No mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description lacks any usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.