View pending group invitations for the current user or device, including groups, inviters, and offered roles.
List pending group invitations for the current user/device. Shows which groups you've been invited to, who invited you, and the offered role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the result contents (groups, inviter, offered role) and that only pending invitations are returned, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth/permission requirements, or pagination/limits.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the returned fields following. Every clause carries information; no filler.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is largely complete: it explains what is listed and what each entry reveals. It would be fully complete if it noted the read-only nature and the absence of filtering options.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.
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 (List) and resource (pending group invitations) with the scope narrowed to the current user/device, so an agent can distinguish it from list_groups or invite_to_group. The purpose is unambiguous, though it never explicitly names those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied by the words 'pending' and 'current user/device'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no reference to the closely related list_groups, get_group_details, or invite_to_group tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.