Add users or groups to a Docmost space and assign a role such as admin, writer, or reader to control wiki access.
Add users and/or groups to a space with a role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| space_id | Yes | Space UUID or slug | |
| user_ids | No | ||
| group_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether adding an existing member updates their role, whether at least one ID is required, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Given the openWorldHint=true annotation, the lack of additional context is a noticeable gap.
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?
A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool's moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is thin. It omits critical context such as idempotency, behavior when a member already exists, permission requirements, and the implication that user_ids/group_ids may be empty. The openWorldHint annotation suggests side effects that the description fails to explain.
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 only 25% (only space_id is documented). The description maps 'users' to user_ids, 'groups' to group_ids, and 'role' to the role parameter, providing some semantic context. However, it does not clarify that at least one of user_ids or group_ids is expected, nor does it explain the behavior when both are omitted.
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 uses a specific verb 'Add' with a clear resource ('users and/or groups to a space') and includes the role qualifier. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_space_member and update_space_member_role, which address different operations.
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 usage scenario: when you want to add members to a space. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or clarify distinctions from related operations like updating roles. It provides only implied usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.