add_user_to_groupAdd a user to a group using their user ID or email. For new invites, include first and last name to send the invitation.
Add a user to a group by user_id or by email (with first_name/last_name for new invites).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| user_id | No | ||
| group_id | Yes | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a mutation (adding a user) but does not state permissions, idempotency, whether invites are sent, what happens if the user already belongs to the group, or the effect of the email-only path.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and packs in the two identification methods and the invite condition. No filler or repetition.
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 the core action and parameter conditions, and an output schema exists for return values. However, with no annotations and no side-effect/error behavior, the definition is not fully complete for a mutating tool; edge cases like duplicate membership or missing identifiers are unaddressed.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden. It explains the roles of user_id, email, first_name, and last_name (the latter two for new invites). It leaves group_id implied by context, and it doesn't explicitly state that one of user_id/email is required, but the 'by...or by...' construction conveys this.
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 ('Add') and resource ('a user to a group'), with the two identification modes. It is distinguishable from its sibling remove_user_from_group by the opposite action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 'for new invites' implies a conditional for using email plus names, which is a light usage cue. But the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like remove_user_from_group or create_user, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.