reject_invitation_userReject a user invitation by removing the user from a scope. Provide the scope ID and either the user ID or username to cancel pending access.
Remueve a un usuario de un scope (rechazo de invitación).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ID del usuario a remover | |
| idScope | Yes | ID del scope | |
| username | No | Usuario a remover (alternativo a id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 only states that it removes a user from a scope, but doesn't disclose whether this is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to associated invitations. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and context. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently states what the tool does.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain side effects, permission requirements, or how it differs from the sibling 'remove_user_from_scope'. Given the complexity of the scope management context and the existence of a very similar sibling, more detail is needed for an agent to call it correctly and safely.
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%, so the schema already describes each parameter (id, idScope, username). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters or usage constraints beyond the schema.
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 action: removes a user from a scope, and specifies the context as invitation rejection. This is a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'remove_user_from_scope', which also removes a user from a scope, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 the similar sibling 'remove_user_from_scope'. The description mentions 'invitation rejection' but doesn't explicitly state that this tool is for rejecting invitations while the other might be for direct removal. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.