TrendIdea

grant_idea_access

Idempotent

Grant a team member access to one of your ideas at a chosen access level (view, edit or admin). Use it to share an idea with a collaborator by email. Not read-only; it changes sharing permissions and is idempotent, so re-granting the same level is safe.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ideaId`	Yes	The idea ID to share
`accessLevel`	No	Access level	view
`targetEmail`	Yes	Email of the team member

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	The tool result rendered as human and AI readable text or markdown.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / targetEmail / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The tool result rendered as human and AI readable text or markdown.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Not read-only" and "is idempotent" restate structured data rather than add to it. The one genuine addition is "re-granting the same level is safe," which spells out what idempotency means operationally, plus the note that sharing permissions change — useful, but thin given the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the access levels before the behavioral caveats. Slight redundancy with the annotations in the third sentence, but no wasted prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish action and scope, which it does. The only missing piece is sibling disambiguation, which matters here given several overlapping sharing/permission tools.

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% and the enum is documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning on its own. The description echoes the three access levels and the email target but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ("Grant a team member access to one of your ideas") and names the mechanism (email) and the value space (view/edit/admin). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like create_share_link or claim_idea, so an agent still has to reason about which sharing tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use it to share an idea with a collaborator by email" gives a positive usage context, but there is no exclusion or explicit alternative — nothing explains when to prefer create_share_link or list_my_teams over this. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

All TrendIdea tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?