tailscale_get_user_inviteFetch details for a specific Tailscale user invite using its invite ID. Inspect invite status, role, and expiration for managing tailnet access.
Get details for a specific user invite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inviteId | Yes | The user invite ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'details' includes — so it earns little credit against the lower annotated bar.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than exemplary structure.
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 read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only gap is that nothing hints at the returned detail set, which is minor at this complexity.
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 inviteId is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about the ID's format, source, or where to obtain it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user invite') with a scope qualifier ('a specific'). It does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling tailscale_get_device_invite, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can pick it over list/create/delete/resend.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling tailscale_list_user_invites, and no stated prerequisite beyond the existence of an invite ID. The only implied usage is 'call this when you already have an invite ID', which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.