Invite a user by email to a laut.fm radio station and assign them an owner, editor, or dj role. Sends the invitation through the Radioadmin API.
Add a user with a given role to a station (sends an invitation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | User role: owner, editor, or dj | |
| Yes | Email address of the user to invite | ||
| station_id | Yes | The station ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries some burden. It discloses that an invitation is sent, which is non-obvious behavioral context beyond the mechanics. However, it does not explain what happens if the user already exists, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The parenthetical adds crucial behavioral context without verbosity.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the what and mechanism but omits critical behavioral details like error conditions, permission needs, and side effects beyond the invitation. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the role enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Add a user... to a station') and distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_station_user and update_station_user_role by describing the add operation. The parenthetical clarifies the mechanism (invitation) rather than direct addition.
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?
The description implies the tool is for adding a user, and the sibling names make the alternative operations clear (remove, update role). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs update_station_user_role or other user management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.