Send an email invitation to a user, assign a role, and include an app link to grant access to your backend.
Send an invitation to a user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | Yes | Application URL for the invitation link | |
| Yes | Email address to invite | ||
| role_Id | Yes | Role ID to assign | |
| tenant_Id | No | Tenant ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or email-sending behavior. 'Send an invitation to a user' reveals nothing about whether an email is dispatched, whether an invite record is created, or whether it is idempotent.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to stating the core action.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the call returns, what side effects occur, or how the invite links to verification or registration. Schema covers parameter semantics, but the larger operation context is missing.
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%, and each parameter (link, email, role_Id, tenant_Id) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage meets the baseline.
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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'an invitation to a user', so the basic action is understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like baasix_send_magic_link or baasix_verify_invite, both of which can be invitation-related.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_magic_link, register_user, or verify_invite. The description only states the action and offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.