Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

EaseWeb

by host.easeweb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Answer an access request

answer_access_request

Approve or decline a request for access to one of your presentations or projects. "role" may change what is given (default: what was asked for); "whole_project" gives it for every presentation of the project of that presentation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNo"view" -- read; "edit" -- read and change.
approveYestrue approves the request, false declines it.
request_idYesThe id of the access request.
whole_projectNoGive the access for the whole project the presentation is in (default false: this presentation only).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
roleNoview or edit.
userNoWho asks.
agentNo
titleNoIts title; null while you may not see it (a private one you asked for).
statusYespending, approved or declined.
messageNo
projectNoSlug of the project, for access to all of it.
created_atNoISO 8601 date and time.
presentationNoSlug of the presentation (null: a project).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Its title; null while you may not see it (a private one you asked for)."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / title / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / presentation / description
      Previous value: -"Slug of the presentation."New value: +"Slug of the presentation (null: a project)."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / presentation / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Slug of the project, for access to all of it.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / whole_project
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Give the access for the whole project the presentation is in (default false: this presentation only).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / approve / description
      Added value: +"true approves the request, false declines it."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "agent": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601 date and time.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "presentation": {
+      "description": "Slug of the presentation.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "role": {
+      "description": "view or edit.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "pending, approved or declined.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "user": {
+      "description": "Who asks.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope semantics of whole_project, but omits behavioral details such as whether the requester is notified, whether a declined request can be re-answered, or whether answering twice errors out.

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?

Two tight sentences with the approve/decline action front-loaded and the scope modifier second. Slightly awkward embedded quoting of parameter names costs it a point but there is no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and all parameters are described, so remaining burden is small. The description covers the decision semantics and scope adequately, though it could note side effects on the requester or re-answering behavior.

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%, so all four parameters (including the role enum and its meanings) are already documented. The description only restates the role default and whole_project behavior, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb pair ('Approve or decline') plus a specific resource ('request for access to one of your presentations or projects'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_access (grant directly), request_access (create a request), and list_access_requests (enumerate).

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?

Conveys the decision context and clarifies the 'role' default ('what was asked for') and the 'whole_project' scope, but never states when to use this versus set_access or request_access, nor what happens on an already-answered request. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All EaseWeb toolsInspect
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