Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Baasix MCP Server

Baasix MCP Server

by tspvivek
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

baasix_verify_invite

Verify an invitation token to confirm validity and optionally validate the associated application URL before granting access.

Instructions

Verify an invitation token

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "baasix_verify_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkNoApplication URL to validate
tokenYesInvitation token

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens with an invalid token, whether verification mutates state or consumes the invite, what response is returned, or whether authentication is required. 'Verify' implies a read-like behavior, but this is not explicit.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is also quite minimal and does not add supporting context.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return behavior and any important context. It fails to mention the optional 'link' parameter at all, nor what a successful or failed verification yields. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently understand the full invocation context.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and since coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') and a clear resource ('an invitation token'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinct from sibling tools like baasix_send_invite, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 tool versus alternatives such as baasix_send_invite, baasix_register_user, or baasix_login. The context of invitation verification is implied by the name, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools