add_group_membersAdd people by email or user ID to a group so they inherit its space roles immediately; requires workspace admin or owner permissions.
Add people (emails or user ids) to a group. They get the group's roles in spaces at once. Needs a workspace admin or owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | Yes | Group name or id from list_groups. | |
| users | Yes | Emails or user ids. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing that members inherit the group's space roles immediately and that admin/owner privileges are required, though it doesn't mention reversibility or partial-failure behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the action and identifier forms front-loaded and the precondition last. Every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the auth requirement plus role-propagation effect cover the main behavioral questions for a bulk mutation. What's missing is failure semantics when some of the up-to-50 users are invalid or already members.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the emails-or-user-ids forms. The description repeats that without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail, 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 and resource ('Add people ... to a group') with the accepted identifier forms, so the agent can tell it apart from add_space_members and list_group_members. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
'Needs a workspace admin or owner' gives a concrete precondition for calling the tool, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over add_space_members or invite_people, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.