Fetch the apps visible to a specific user invitation by ID, with pagination and selectable app fields.
GET /v1/userInvitations/{id}/visibleApps (GET /v1/userInvitations/{id}/visibleApps)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page | |
| fields_apps | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type apps |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'GET' verb weakly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about pagination (despite a limit parameter), permissions required, or what the related-resource payload looks like. For an unannotated endpoint this is a substantial gap.
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?
It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the same path is stated twice inside parentheses for no reason, and no useful content is front-loaded. Length is not earned by information.
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 three-parameter related-resources endpoint with sparse-fieldset and pagination semantics, and the description explains none of it. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent with only the raw path, which is inadequate to call it correctly.
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%, with 'id', 'limit', and 'fields_apps' all documented inline, including a full enum for the sparse-fieldset values. The description adds nothing on top of the schema, so the 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?
The description is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and HTTP path ('GET /v1/userInvitations/{id}/visibleApps'), duplicated twice with no added explanation. It technically encodes a verb and a resource path, but it is a tautology that gives no meaning beyond the name. It also fails to distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as user_invitations_visible_apps_get_to_many_relationship or users_visible_apps_get_to_many_related.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling variants (relationship vs related, users vs userInvitations). An agent has no basis for choosing between the duplicate-looking tools in the catalog.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.