drive_list_invitationsList pending Proton Drive sharing invitations from other users, including sender, role, and item details, so you can accept or reject them by uid.
List pending sharing invitations from other users: [{uid, role, invitedByEmail, invitedAt?, nodeName, nodeType}]. Use the uid with drive_invitation_accept / drive_invitation_reject.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are filtered to pending invitations and only those from other users, and it clarifies that the entries carry a uid usable by the accept/reject siblings. Pagination or ordering behavior is not described.
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?
Two sentences, with the operation front-loaded and the field shape rendered compactly as an inline record list. The field list is dense but each entry earns its place given there is no output schema; no filler text.
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?
With no output schema, the inline field list (uid, role, invitedByEmail, invitedAt?, nodeName, nodeType) supplies exactly the return-value information an agent needs, including an optionality marker. Combined with the follow-up routing, nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter list tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.
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 (List) and resource (pending sharing invitations from other users), with scope qualifiers that separate it from drive_share_status, drive_sharing_audit, and the invite/accept/reject siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tools (drive_invitation_accept / drive_invitation_reject) and names the field (uid) needed to call them, which defines this tool's place in the flow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or any prerequisites, so it does not reach the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.