Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

add_org_member

Destructive

Adds a member to an organization by tenant ID or email, assigning or updating their role (owner, admin, member, or viewer); the organization must be on Kiln Business.

Instructions

Add tenant_id to org_id. role is one of owner, admin, member, viewer. Already- enrolled members get their role updated in place.

Needs the organisation to be on Kiln Business.

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": {
      "org_id": "<org_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_org_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoThe member's org role: ``"owner"``, ``"admin"``, ``"member"`` (the default) or ``"viewer"``. An invitation on Kiln's hosted server takes ``"admin"``, ``"member"`` or ``"viewer"``. Default: "member".
emailNoThe person's email address. Required on Kiln's hosted server, where they are sent an invitation; not used elsewhere.
ask_idNoThe id an earlier ``APPROVAL_REQUIRED`` answer returned. Pass it on the repeat call to learn whether the person approved; omit it on the first call.
org_idYesThe org the person joins.
tenant_idNoThe account to add, on a computer running its own Kiln, where it is required. Not used on Kiln's hosted server, which invites by ``email``.
invited_byNoWho is adding the member, recorded on the membership. On Kiln's hosted server it is read from the signed-in session.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: adding an existing member silently overwrites their role in place, and the tenant_id/org_id form is for self-hosted Kiln while the hosted server invites by email. It still does not describe the invitation-and-approval lifecycle, which is the most consequential side effect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the role constraint and the plan precondition. The lead sentence's phrasing ('Add tenant_id to org_id') is jargon-heavy for what is fundamentally a membership invite, but no sentence is wasted.

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 six-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the critical upsert semantics and the plan gating. The remaining gap, the hosted-server invitation and approval round trip, is documented in the parameter descriptions rather than the tool description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the role enumeration already present in the schema and glosses tenant_id/org_id, but says nothing about email, invited_by or ask_id beyond what the schema documents, so it adds little net meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb-plus-resource ('Add ... to org_id') and clarifies the role values and the upsert behaviour, so an agent can tell this adds or re-roles an org member. It never names or contrasts the obvious siblings add_team_member or remove_org_member, so differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It supplies one genuine prerequisite ('Needs the organisation to be on Kiln Business'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance, does not mention the add_team_member / remove_org_member alternatives, and does not surface the APPROVAL_REQUIRED two-call flow that the ask_id parameter implies.

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