Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_invitation

DestructiveIdempotent

Revoke a pending invitation so its acceptance link stops working. Use it to invalidate unaccepted invites; accepted, revoked, or expired invitations 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.

BeeL API endpoint: DELETE /v1/accounts/{account_id}/invitations/{invitation_id} (reference: https://docs.beel.es)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "invitation_id": "<invitation_id>"
    },
    "name": "beel_delete_invitation"
  }
}

Input 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-read-only/idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: the exact state machine that gates success, the deliberate 404 that hides which resolved state applies, and the fact that revocation leaves the invitation visible in listings. Those are real operational details an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by two tight bullets, each carrying distinct information. The trailing BeeL endpoint and docs URL are boilerplate that does not help tool selection, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 two-parameter, annotation-rich mutation tool this covers purpose, preconditions, failure modes, and post-state. The one gap is the success response shape (status code or body) — with no output schema present, a single clause on what a successful revoke returns would close the loop.

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% and both parameter descriptions already spell out the cross-account 403/404 semantics, so the description adds nothing about `account_id` or `invitation_id`. Baseline 3 applies because the schema is doing all the parameter work.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb plus resource plus state constraint: 'Revokes a `PENDING` invitation, so its acceptance link stops working.' That distinguishes it cleanly from `beel_create_invitation`, `beel_get_invitation`, `beel_list_invitations`, and the other delete-family siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It states a clear precondition and exclusion: only `PENDING` invitations can be revoked, and resolved ones (ACCEPTED/REVOKED/EXPIRED) cannot. It does not, however, name the alternative path an agent should take instead (e.g. listing or fetching the invitation first to confirm state, or creating a fresh invitation), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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