create_invitationCreate a user invitation, automatically setting the tenant and author from the token, and accepting username, email, and roles.
Crea una invitación de usuario. El idScope se fuerza al tenant del token y el autor se toma del token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Metadatos de la invitación | |
| No | Email del invitado | ||
| extra | No | ||
| roles | No | Roles asignados | |
| username | No | Nombre de usuario invitado |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral details: idScope is forced to the token's tenant and author is taken from the token. No annotations are present, so this information carries the full burden, but other behaviors (e.g., email sending, validation) are not mentioned.
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, consisting of two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds behavioral context. No unnecessary information.
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?
While the description gives the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint, it does not explain the meaning of the 'meta' and 'extra' nested objects, nor does it specify any validation or side effects. It also lacks guidance on the relationship with sibling tools, so it is not fully complete for an agent to use 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?
Schema description coverage is about 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add further meaning to the individual parameters; it only explains token-derived fields that are not part of the parameter list. Since coverage is high, baseline score is 3.
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 creates a user invitation with a specific verb ('Crea') and resource ('invitación de usuario'). It also clarifies that idScope is forced and author taken from token, which distinguishes its behavior from other user-related tools.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_user or list_invitations. It implies usage for creating invitations, but lacks guidance on conditions or comparisons with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.