gryzzly-mcp

invite_user

Invite a new Gryzzly team member by email, optionally assigning a role and groups, so Gryzzly sends the invitation and creates their pending account.

Instructions

Invite someone to the team by email. Gryzzly sends the invitation; the user exists from that moment, pending their acceptance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	The role to grant. Defaults to `contributor`.
`email`	Yes	The email address to invite. Gryzzly sends the invitation itself.
`group_ids`	No	Group identifiers to put the new user in.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The user's identifier.
`code`	No	The user's code, as set by the administrators.
`name`	No	The user's display name.
`role`	No	One of `contributor`, `collaborator`, `manager`, `director`, `admin`.
`email`	No	The user's email address.
`groups`	No	The groups the user belongs to.
`created_at`	No	When the user was created.
`updated_at`	No	When the user was last updated.
`disabled_at`	No	When the user was disabled, if they were.
`hourly_cost`	No	The user's hourly cost. Only on the budget offer.
`hourly_rate`	No	The user's hourly rate. Only on the budget offer.
`is_disabled`	No	Deprecated upstream in favour of `disabled_at`.
`timesheet_approved_until`	No	The date until which this user's times are approved.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: Gryzzly sends the invitation and the user record exists immediately, pending acceptance. This informs the agent about state changes and the non-idempotent nature of the operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose and then the key behavioral side effect. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and schema descriptions are complete, the description supplies the needed purpose and side-effect details. It could mention permission requirements or duplicate-invite behavior, but those are minor gaps for a simple invite operation.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already documents for email, role, and group_ids. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Invite someone to the team by email.' No sibling tool performs this action, so it is unambiguous. The added clause about the user existing immediately further distinguishes it from a simple notification.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: to invite someone to the team by email. There are no alternative invite tools among siblings, so no explicit comparison is needed, but it also lacks when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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