Send email invitations to add users to a workspace, assigning admin, editor, or viewer roles.
Send email invitations to join a workspace.
workspace_id: target workspace ID — get available IDs from list_workspaces()
role_id: 1 = Admin, 2 = Editor, 3 = Viewer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | ||
| role_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that emails are sent and maps role_id values, but it does not disclose side effects like invitation record creation, email delivery failures, or authorization requirements, which are not covered by annotations.
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 concise, using two sentences and a clear parameter breakdown. No redundant or filler content is present.
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 covers basic invocation details but omits expected output, error conditions, permissions, or distinctions from similar invitation tools. Given the lack of an output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent to use this tool confidently.
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 description explains workspace_id (target workspace from list_workspaces) and role_id (1=Admin, 2=Editor, 3=Viewer), adding meaning absent from the schema. However, the 'emails' parameter is not described, leaving its purpose implied by the tool name.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Send email invitations to a workspace.' It specifies the resource (workspace) and action (invite via email), distinguishing it from similar tools like invite_to_hub_profile.
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 usage by identifying the target resource (workspace) and providing context for workspace_id via list_workspaces(), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as invite_to_hub_profile or mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.