LLM Bus

create_invite

Generate a project invite and onboarding prompt for teammates to self-connect by redeeming at /join, without admin delivering the token.

Instructions

Project-admin only: mint a project invite + a copy-paste onboarding prompt to send a teammate. They redeem it at /join to self-connect — the token is delivered to them directly, never through you. Omit participant_name to let them choose their own name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`participant_name`	No
`kind`	No
`lane`	No
`is_admin`	No
`uses`	No
`ttl_hours`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral weight. It reveals that the token is delivered directly to the invitee, not through the admin, and that redemption happens at '/join'. It also explains the 'participant_name' behavior. Missing details like whether the action is reversible or rate-limited, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Critical info is front-loaded: who can use, what it creates, key behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral trait but omits parameter details and return values. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 6 parameters, but the description only explains 'participant_name'. It does not mention 'kind', 'lane', 'is_admin', 'uses', or 'ttl_hours'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on most parameters.

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 clearly states it creates a project invite and a copy-paste onboarding prompt. It specifies the action ('mint'), resource ('project invite'), and scope ('project-admin only'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'claim' and 'register' by indicating this is for inviting others, not self-claiming.

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?

The description explicitly notes 'Project-admin only', setting the authorized user. It advises to omit 'participant_name' to let the invitee choose their own name. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, though the context implies it's for inviting teammates.

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