umami-mcp

add_team_user

Assign a user to a team by specifying the team UUID, user UUID, and role (team-member, team-view-only, or team-manager).

Instructions

Add a user to a team

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "add_team_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	Role in the team
`teamId`	Yes	Team UUID
`userId`	Yes	User UUID to add

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 24, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / role / description
```
Previous value: -"Role in the team: 'team-owner' or 'team-member'"New value: +"Role in the team"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / role / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "team-member",
+  "team-view-only",
+  "team-manager"
+]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / teamId / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / userId / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```
First observedv1.2.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether this requires admin/owner permission, whether it is idempotent when the user is already a member, what happens on failure, or whether the user is invited versus directly attached.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a three-parameter required-field mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain permissions, failure modes, and side effects. It says nothing about any of these, leaving an agent unable to predict what happens when the membership already exists or the role is invalid.

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 description coverage is 100%: teamId and userId are documented as UUIDs and role carries an explicit three-value enum with a description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence 'Add a user to a team' names a verb and two resources, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name add_team_user and adds no scope detail. It does not distinguish this operation from siblings such as update_team_user, remove_team_user, or join_team, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of update_team_user (changing a role) or remove_team_user (revoking access), which are the obvious near-miss alternatives in the sibling list. No preconditions, such as the user or team needing to already exist, are stated.

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

Deploy Server