Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_invitation

DestructiveIdempotent

Revokes a PENDING invitation so its acceptance link stops working; already accepted, revoked, or expired invitations cannot be revoked and return 404.

Instructions

Revokes a PENDING invitation, so its acceptance link stops working.

  • Already resolved: an ACCEPTED, REVOKED or EXPIRED invitation cannot be revoked, and answers 404 without disclosing which of the three it is.

  • History: revoking does not remove the invitation from the list.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/accounts/{account_id}/invitations/{invitation_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesYour own account, or an account you provisioned. It — not the credential — decides which account the operation acts on; a `403` is returned when you do not reach it, the same response an account that does not exist gets.
invitation_idYesIdentifier (UUID) of an invitation of the account in the path, as returned when it is created or listed. An invitation of another account answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / invitation_id / description
      Added value: +"Identifier (UUID) of an invitation of the account in the path, as returned when it is created or listed. An invitation of another account answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint), the description discloses the real side effect (acceptance link stops working), the retention behavior (history is not removed), and the non-disclosing 404 error semantics. It omits auth/permission requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first clause, uses tight bullets for the two edge cases, and ends with the endpoint. No sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers side effects, error behavior, and state prerequisites. It is nearly complete, lacking only explicit permission/auth context, though the account_id schema field partially compensates with its 403 note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both UUID parameters are already fully documented in the schema (including the 403/404 semantics). The description only restates the endpoint path and adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (revokes) and resource (a PENDING invitation) and clarifies the effect ('its acceptance link stops working'). The scope qualifier 'PENDING' distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools such as beel_list_invitations and beel_get_invitation without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly defines when the tool succeeds (only PENDING) and when it fails (ACCEPTED/REVOKED/EXPIRED answer 404). It does not name a sibling alternative for handling already-resolved invitations, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools