Skip to main content
Glama
dreamforgestudiollc

EMET

by dreamforgestudiollc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

emet_invite_create

Destructive

EMET Guest Access: create a one-time code for a guest. They paste it on the connect screen instead of the passphrase. Default access is read-only. Only the owner can create a guest code. EMET Member Access is a different door.

Instructions

EMET Guest Access: create a one-time code for a guest. They paste it on the connect screen instead of the passphrase. Default access is read-only. Only the owner can create a guest code. EMET Member Access is a different door.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoDays until the code expires. Default 14.
scopesNoGuest invites accept only emet.read.
sourceNoSource tag bound to this guest at approval. Exact membership of EMET_SOURCE_TAGS when a registry is set.
display_nameYesName the guest will be known by in this store

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / scopes / description
      Previous value: -"Default: emet.read only"New value: +"Guest invites accept only emet.read."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scopes / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "emet.read",
-  "emet.write"
-]New value: +[
+  "emet.read"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / source
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Source tag bound to this guest at approval. Exact membership of EMET_SOURCE_TAGS when a registry is set.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: owner-only authorization, default read-only access, and that the code is one-time. It does not explain the destructiveHint or the return value, but the added auth and default-access details are valuable.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and core action. Each sentence carries distinct information: purpose, usage mechanics, access default, authorization rule, and sibling differentiation. There is no filler or repetition.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, authorization, and alternative routing. However, it does not state what the tool returns (presumably the one-time code) or how expiration defaults work beyond the schema's 'days' parameter. These are minor gaps for an otherwise complete definition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that guest invites accept only 'emet.read', which maps to the scopes parameter, but adds no new syntax or format details. This is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'create a one-time code for a guest'. It immediately scopes the tool to EMET Guest Access and explicitly distinguishes it from 'EMET Member Access', which is named as a different door. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides clear usage context: guests paste the code on the connect screen instead of the passphrase, only the owner can create a guest code, and member access is a separate path. The alternative (EMET Member Access) is explicitly named and visually separated as 'a different door'. This leaves little ambiguity about when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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