Invite a new team member by email, sending a link to set their password and optionally assigning a role or pre-filling profile details.
Invite a new team member via email. Sends an invite email with a link to set their password.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Role (default: member) | |
| Yes | Email address to invite | ||
| phone | No | Pre-populate phone number | |
| lastName | No | Pre-populate last name | |
| firstName | No | Pre-populate first name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that an invite email is sent with a password-setup link, but it omits key behavioral details such as required permissions, what happens if the email already exists, whether the invite can be resent, and what the response contains.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. The second sentence adds useful behavioral context, though it could be folded into the first to be maximally efficient.
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?
This is a multi-parameter mutation-like operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the basic action and email side effect but leaves gaps around permissions, duplicate handling, and response behavior that an agent might need before calling it.
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 five parameters including role enum and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: invite a new team member via email. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool conduyt_create_user, which may also create team members.
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 phrase 'Invite a new team member via email' implies the intended context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus conduyt_create_user or other user-management tools. No exclusions or preconditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.