Invite a Matrix user to an existing room by providing the room ID and full user ID such as '@alice:example.org'. Supports dry runs for safe testing.
Invite a user to an existing room. user_id is a full Matrix ID like '@alice:example.org'. dry_run-able.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| tenant | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| room_id | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral information: the operation is a mutation and supports a dry-run mode, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to preview effects. It omits, however, authorization/power-level requirements, idempotency (re-inviting an already-joined user), and 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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The coined term 'dry_run-able' is compact but slightly informal/obscure compared to stating the parameter explicitly, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and no stated permission requirements. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently beyond the happy path.
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 0% across 5 parameters. The description compensates for exactly one of them, giving the user_id format with a concrete example ('@alice:example.org'), and gestures at dry_run via 'dry_run-able'. room_id format, reason, and tenant are entirely undocumented in both description and schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Invite a user to an existing room.' This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling (list, get, send, create, search), so an agent can select it without ambiguity. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't name or contrast a specific sibling alternative.
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?
'to an existing room' implies the precondition that the room must already exist, and 'dry_run-able' hints that a safe trial mode is available. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the required room permission/power level, and no routing to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.