permission_propose
Ask for a right to be given to an account or to the members of a space.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| owner | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| space | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| capability | Yes | ||
| expiry_days | No |
Ask for a right to be given to an account or to the members of a space.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| owner | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| space | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| capability | Yes | ||
| expiry_days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / capability / enumPrevious value: -[
- "code.host",
- "source.write"
-]New value: +[
+ "code.host",
+ "source.write",
+ "compute.submit"
+]Input schema / properties / capability / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / expiry_days / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / owner / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / reason / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / scope / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / space / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / to / propertiesRemoved value: -nullInput schema / properties / capability / propertiesAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / expiry_days / descriptionRemoved value: -"1-365, default 30"Input schema / properties / expiry_days / propertiesAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / owner / descriptionRemoved value: -"account scope: who grants it (default you); they must hold the right and share a space with you"Input schema / properties / owner / propertiesAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / reason / descriptionRemoved value: -"why, in a sentence (shown to the owner)"Input schema / properties / reason / propertiesAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / scope / descriptionRemoved value: -"account (default): one account; space: everyone in the space when approved, while they stay members"Input schema / properties / scope / propertiesAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / space / descriptionRemoved value: -"a space to post the request and the answer in (default: the space of a space scope)"Input schema / properties / space / propertiesAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / to / descriptionRemoved value: -"a 16-hex account id, or a space id when scope is space"Input schema / properties / to / propertiesAdded value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The phrase 'Ask for' adds useful context that this is a request/proposal rather than an immediate grant, but it does not explain that the request likely becomes pending a decision or what approval flow follows.
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 wasted words. It is concise, though the phrasing 'Ask for a right to be given' is slightly awkward.
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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the proposal lifecycle, required versus optional parameters, or the meaning of the scope and capability enums.
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 0% for seven parameters. The description vaguely maps 'to' to an account or space members and 'capability' to the requested right, but it leaves owner, scope, space, reason, expiry_days, and enum values unexplained.
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 clear action (asking/proposing for a right to be granted) and names the two target types: an account or members of a space. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like permission_decide or permission_revoke, 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as permission_decide, permission_status, or space_grant. The only implied usage is the tautological purpose of asking for a permission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.