List pending team invitations in App Store Connect. Filter by email, set limit, and auto-paginate to retrieve all pending invites.
List pending user invitations on your team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Exact email filter | ||
| limit | No | Max invitations (default 100). With auto_paginate this is the total across pages. | |
| auto_paginate | No | Follow links.next across pages until the limit is reached (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully narrows behavior by specifying 'pending' invitations (excluding accepted/revoked), which is real context beyond the annotation, but says nothing about auth needs or result shape.
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 waste. It is well-sized, though the brevity means it leaves opportunity for routing guidance on the table.
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 list tool, the description plus rich schema descriptions and readOnlyHint cover most needs. Only the lack of sibling routing guidance leaves a minor gap.
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%, and the schema already documents email filtering, limit, and auto_paginate behavior in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('List') and resource ('pending user invitations') with a clear scope ('on your team'). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_users and invite_user, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_users or invite_user, and no prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.