base_wework_add_project_memberAdds a project member or developer while preserving all existing project members. Provide the project ID and user IDs to add them to the project.
Thêm thành viên/dev vào dự án mà vẫn giữ nguyên các thành viên hiện tại.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| users | Yes | ||
| username | No | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the most important behavior: existing project members are preserved. However, it does not mention permissions, duplicate-user handling, reversibility, or what happens if the user is already a member, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, and the most important behavioral constraint (preserving existing members) is included directly and front-loaded in the second clause.
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?
The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. It omits parameter semantics, required authentication context, and edge-case behavior, and it does not explicitly position itself against the large set of similarly named project-member siblings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the rest is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain any parameter meanings, formats, or relationships. It only conveys the general concepts of 'project' and 'member/dev', giving an agent no practical guidance about the required id and users fields or optional username and access_token.
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 states a specific action ('Thêm thành viên/dev vào dự án' = add member/dev to project) and adds the key scoping detail 'mà vẫn giữ nguyên các thành viên hiện tại' (while keeping current members), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project_member or exchange_project_member.
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 correct usage context: use this when adding members additively rather than replacing or exchanging them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the semantics of 'still keeping existing members' provides clear context for selecting this tool over related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.